Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Fleet Line

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he is considering to extend the Fleet railway line service to outer London boroughs.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): None, Sir.

Mr. Cox: But is not the Minister aware of the appalling travelling conditions that thousands of people who either work or live in South-East London have to face, day in and day out, and of the urgent need to extend facilities in that area? Is he not further aware that the Tory GLC election bribe of last week gives no hope at all to those people? Will he therefore consider meeting the representatives of the London Boroughs Association, and also agree to consider favourably financial help to extend the Fleet Line?

Mr. Peyton: I have recently appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Sir David Barran to look into the whole of London railway movement, and I look forward to having that knowledgeable report. From the general tone of the hon. Member's question I cannot help feeling that it is not entirely unconnected with the GLC elections.

Out-of-Town Shopping Centres

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications he has received for out-

of-town shops and shopping centres; and how many he has allowed.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): My right hon. and learned Friend has before him, on appeal or through call-in, 25 proposals for developments over 50,000 sq. ft. floor space. In addition, he has allowed two such cases. He has also rejected two.

Mr. Duffy: How does the Minister reconcile the recent go-ahead at Chandler's Ford with the advice given to local authorities last summer by the previous Secretary of State that supermarkets in future should be sited where they will provide not only for shopping but for a wide range of interests, and cater for those without cars? Is he aware that the Chandler's Ford development renders unlikely proper social provision and positively disadvantages the old, the poor and those without cars? Does not this represent a significant change of policy? Are the floodgates now open? How many super- and hypermarkets are we to have, and will the Minister continue to decide these matters on an ad hoc basis? Further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite-enough.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member has had the decision letter in the case to which he referred and he will know why permission was granted. In all these cases we must balance the disadvantages to the existing centre of the town against the advantages of out-of-town shopping. But there is no question of decisions being taken on an ad hoc basis. Circular 17/72 was issued to planning authorities giving them guidelines.

Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider the need to create a special class of out-of-town shop selling agricultural produce only, not necessarily grown by the shopkeeper? At present, it is impossible for a farmer to set up a shop without its being rated as a general shop. All planning inspectors reject such applications. Can my right hon. Friend look at this matter urgently?

Mr. Page: I know the problem here and we are considering it with the local authority associations.

Operation Eyesore

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now announce his decision on the future of Operation Eyesore.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet completed his review of the scheme. He hopes to make an announcement in the near future.

Mr. Lyons: I appreciate that the scheme Operation Eyesore was meant to be a top-speed, grand slam attempt to deal with a serious environmental problem, but will the Minister bear in mind that in some parts of the country, including Yorkshire, local authorities and others were slow off the mark, and have had relatively little advantage from a very valuable scheme? Further, in view of the employment question, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the Secretary of State to arrive very quickly at a favourable conclusion for a 12-months' extension?

Mr. Page: The hon. Member has been very assiduous in his questioning on this matter, and I am sorry still to disappoint him—because we have not yet reached a decision. The scheme has been very successful, but it was intended as a shot in the arm on environmental matters, and that has been its success.

Mr. Cant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Stoke-on-Trent has spent £750,000 on SEA schemes—£3 per head of the population—but that despite this 20 applications per week are being received from the private sector, which is just waking up to the great advantages of the scheme? Does he realise that unless he makes a decision shortly it will be necessary for Stoke-on-Trent, at any rate, to call a halt to the programme?

Mr. Page: As the hon. Member knows, I am very jealous of his constituency, in that his constituency pipped mine on the post in a competition on this very subject, but it is gratifying that the Opposition are praising the Government for this novel idea, which has been successful. The difficulty now is competing for demands for expenditure, and we still have a number of matters to take into account before announcing an extension.

Residential Development

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local planning authorities asking them to make public details of land which would receive outline planning approval for residential development within their areas and land which already has received such approval.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): Local planning authorities have already been asked by Circular 102/72 to publish information of land which either already enjoys planning permission for housing or seems suitable for such development within the next five years.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many local authorities have responded to Circular 102 of last year, and since there seems to be an increasing delay in dealing with both outline detailed planning applications, has not the time come for a more positive approach by planning officers, before the detailed planning stage application, in terms of assisting applicants in the minor problems needing to be sorted out?

Mr. Channon: As to the first point, about 44 authorities have published this information so far. The remainder are going to do so within a very short time. I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's other suggestions and discuss them with my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister not think that a more sensible idea might be to send a circular to local authorities telling them to draw up plans for the taking over of all urban redevelopment land? That is the only way we can solve the housing shortage.

Mr. Channon: I do not think that that is a particularly sensible idea for a circular, but if the hon. Member will undertake to obey any circular sent out I shall certainly consider anything that he has in mind.

Mr. Freeson: Will the Minister tell the House how much truth there was in reports which appeared over the weekend in the Sunday Press saying that he is


drawing up plans for a massive takeover by his Department of land which has received planning approvals for residential development over a number of years has not yet been developed on those approvals? Will he also say whether the GLC is included among the 44 authorities he mentioned? Is it publishing details of land with approvals granted but not yet developed?

Mr. Channon: On his first point the hon. Member has possibly been confused by the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Statement, concerning the land hoarding charge, which was probably the basis of that newspaper report. My right hon. and learned Friend is to make further details available to the House in the near future. As to the hon. Member's second point, as he probably knows, the circular was related to local authorities outside London.

Driving Licences (Age Limits)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the raising or lowering of the ages at which the various types of driving licences can be issued; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: As I announced on 19th February, minimum ages for driving certain heavy vehicles will be brought into line with EEC regulations on 1st January 1976. I have no plan for other changes.

Mr. Redmond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that many people, particularly among constituents of mine, have the idea that when they become 17 they will not be able to get a driving licence because some change is to come about owing to our entering the Common Market? Will he say that we are a long way from any decision of that sort and that if there is to be a change Britain's voice will be heard properly, and that there will not be a change just for the sake of change?

Mr. Peyton: Many people of relevant age have written to me expressing anxieties similar to those my hon. Friend has mentioned. I have told them that the idea had not yet occurred to me.

Mr. Marten: But my right hon. Friend is surely aware that this draft directive

is sculling around in Brussels, that this must give rise to anxiety, and that its effective date is 1st January 1974, if it is accepted? Will my right hon. Friend totally resist any such stupid idea for raising the driving age from 17 to 18, and resist this fussy interference in our lives by bureaucratic functionaries?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend is giving vent to views which were not entirely unexpected from him. I should certainly wish to give mature consideration to any proposal. Of course, I know that there is one, but I was unaware of the fact that it was sculling around. That is a means of locomotion new to me in terms of regulations.

Mr. Money: While giving mature consideration to these subjects, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of the minimum age for motor cycle licences and confirm that there is no indication that raising that age has reduced the number of accidents at all?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of building the Humber Bridge and associated road systems.

Mr. Peyton: Contracts for the bridge structure have now been awarded by the Humber Bridge Board. Preparation of the associated road improvements is on schedule.

Mr. Wall: I am grateful to hear that the contract has gone to a British consortium. Will my right hon. Friend say whether he expects the bridge to be completed by 1975, when the motorway is due to be completed? Will he further say whether he is satisfied with proposals for the northern outlet, either by making the A1034 a trunk road or by the county council's alternative proposals?

Mr. Peyton: I am prepared to write to my hon. Friend about the last point. The question of the date of completion of the bridge is really a matter for the board, but the end of 1976 or early 1977 is the likely date.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is recognition


in the British construction industry that the Government have played a welcome part in awarding the contract to a British company, ensuring 500 jobs in the construction process in this country, and that, therefore, the union concerned is very grateful indeed?

Mr. Peyton: And I am very grateful for the hon. Member for his gracious words.

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Licences)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the number of applicants for operators' licences for heavy goods vehicles in each of the years since the system has been operating and the numbers of those whose applications have been refused.

Mr. Peyton: As the answer consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Huckfield: But surely the Minister recognises that those figures show that a very small number of applications for operators' licences are refused? Does this not show that it is far too easy for any pirate or cowboy to put a lorry on the road? Will he do his best to increase the number of assessors who sit with the

Transitional Licences
New Licences
All Operators Licences





Number of applications received
Number of applications refused
Number of applications received
Number of applications refused
Number of applications received
Number of applications refused


1969–70 
…
…
92,585
37
11,374
200
103,959
237


1970–71
…
…
7,644
13
30,545
587
38,189
600


1971–72
…
…
 —
— 
23,569
534
23,569
534

Rates

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his monitoring of local authority rate levels for 1973–74; how many submissions he has had; and if he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT those authorities which have subsequently reduced the original figures.

Mr. Graham Page: 1,235 local authorities in England have submitted information about their proposals for expenditure and rates or precepts in 1973–74. Reductions amounting to £9·7 million have so far been notified by 146 authorities.

licensing authorities when they grant these operating licences, and will he do his best to publicise the fact that local authorities, trade unions, trade associations and the police have power to object? Better still, will he do his best to increase the activities, scope and ownership of the National Freight Corporation?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member has piled a lot of questions together, but I am grateful to him for his aid in giving publicity to the right of objection to licences. Indeed, I agree with him that the industry ought to help in this matter. There have been only 46 objections to applications in three years—22 from the Road Haulage Association, none at all from the Freight Transport Haulage Association, and none from the trade unions. I would hope that there would be more objections.

Sir R. Cary: In the years immediately ahead will there not be a great shortage of competent heavy-duty vehicle drivers, and is not this an area where one of the Government's training schemes has a useful part to play?

Mr. Peyton: I agree that a shortage of such drivers is likely, and it is a matter of considerable concern both for the Government and for industry.

Following are the figures:

Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend consider the monitoring of rates a success story? Does he consider it to be a once-and-for-all exercise?

Mr. Page: I hope it will be a once-for-all exercise, although we have taken powers to apply it next year. I think it has been a success, not necessarily in the amount of £9·7 million—although that is a substantial amount of savings—but by reason of the co-operation between the Government and local authorities in considering the rate demands. In those cases where I have had conferences with the local authorities we have come to a very much better understanding through talking across the table.

Mr. Kaufman: Why docs the Minister pretend that this monitoring is other than a cynical farce, since in the case of the city of Manchester his Department, having been provided with ample information a long time before, telephoned one minute before the meeting of the rate fixing committee, queried £2 million expenditure, which the Department ought to have known about anyway, and, after a further delay, admitted that every penny of Manchester's expenditure was fully justified, though it did not mean to give any further help in dealing with the problems which the Department forces upon us?

Mr. Page: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will get his facts correct. It was 20 minutes before the meeting, not one minute, and the corporation admitted that its mathematics were wrong, and put right the £2 million figure later.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the Minister satisfy himself that any savings that have been achieved have not been achieved at the expense of the social services provided by councils? Would not he have been better employed in asking his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give him some of the £110 million that he gave away when he reduced the tax on children's sweets, to help local authorities not only maintain but expand those services for which there is such a desperate need?

Mr. Page: No. I think that in all the cases—certainly those on which I have had personal discussions—there was no question of the amount of social services. I was not seeking to cut those in any way. Generally, it was a discussion on the amount allowed for inflation.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he contemplates further discussions with the Association of Municipal Corporations on the subject of revaluation of rates and its effect on individual local authorities.

Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister accept that many thousands of ratepayers in the county borough of Newport now face a considerable increase in their rate bills, for all that the town received in budgetary relief was just over £11,000? Does not he agree that the Government are now placing local authorities such as mine in an impossible position, through both revaluation and inflation? Does not he further agree that an increased rate bill can only have an inflationary effect, which the Government are allegedly trying to combat?

Mr. Page: All domestic ratepayers benefit by the 50 per cent. greater reduction that we have made in the rate poundage, and those whose fair share of rates is substantially greater than they have been paying previously will have the transitional relief. Certain discussions are taking place with local authority associations on many aspects of local government finance, but not particularly on revaluation.

Mr. Oakes: But has not the Association of Municipal Corporations expressed its dissatisfaotion to the Minister about the formula that he proposes? Is not it true that a great deal of the money will be spent on administrative costs, so complicated is the Government's formula?

Mr. Page: Yes, but the Question asked whether any further discussions were taking place. I am satisfied that the formula is the best that can be provided in the circumstances and that it is giving good relief to those whose rate bill is more this year, by reason of revaluation, than it was last year.

Transport Users Consultative Committee for Wales

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the names of the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Wales and list the changes in membership which have taken place in the past two years.

Mr. Peyton: The committee was reconstituted on 1st March 1972, since when there have been no changes of membership. I will, with permission, circulate the list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Roderick: Is the Minister aware of the grave anxieties which exist that he is anti-railway in his attitude? We know that two previous members of that committee who were keen supporters of the railways have been dropped. Is that attitude reflected in the Minister's Department?

Mr. Peyton: If I have a reputation for being in any way anti-railway it is solely due to the hon. Gentleman and people like him who ask questions like that.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will not the Minister do his best to appoint to transport users consultative committees people who know something about the travelling problems of the public? Will not he accept that very little is known about the members of TUCCs and even less about their activities? Will he now do his utmost to tell railway travellers that they can complain, and that they have these channels of complaint?

Mr. Peyton: I think that these channels of complaint are well known to the House and to the public.

Mr. Huckfield: No.

Mr. Peyton: It is quite uncalled for to say that the people who serve on these committees have neither interest nor knowledge in the subject. They perform a very useful task, and I am grateful to them.
This committee was set up in a manner exactly similar to that followed by the previous administration, and I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the Minister withdraw the remark that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), bearing in mind that we hope that he is not anti-railway? Those of us who have been engaged in the railways will look forward to his cooperation in the future.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has in mind many instances of authors wishing to withdraw remarks that they have made, but the remark that I have just made to his hon. Friend is not one of them.

Following is the information:

Mr. C. L. Ricketts (Chairman).
*Mr. W. O. D. Eadie, FCMA, ACIS, MBCS

Councillor Mrs. G. Evans.
*Mrs. M. E. Evans.
Councillor E. H. Gough.
*Mr. J. M. Griffiths, ACIS.
Mrs. M. R. Griffiths. JP.
Mr. L. Howell, OBE, FCIS
Mr. A. Hughes, ACIS.
Mrs. D. Hughes.
*Mr. J G. James, Dip PESS.
*Mr. J. A. Jones, MBE, FIAC
Councillor E. Joyce.
*Mr. R. Marler, BA.
Mrs. E. Richards, SRN, SCM.
*Alderman J. C. Roberts.
Mr. O. G. Saunders.
Alderman Captain R. P. Turner, JP.
*Mr. J. R. Ryler.
Mr. G. A. Whitefoot.
Mr. J. I. Williams.

The asterisk indicates members appointed for the first time when the Committee was reconstituted in March 1972.

Clean Air (Working Party Report)

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of the working party of the Clean Air Council on confidentiality of information relating to emissions, effluents and discharges.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Next month, Sir.

Mr. Archer: I am glad. Will the hon. Gentleman take speedy steps to inform himself and the House of its contents? Without anticipating its contents, does the hon. Gentleman agree that even Lucrezia Borgia never claimed a right of privacy for her recipes?

Mr. Griffiths: I am not able to advise the hon. and learned Gentleman on the habits of Lucrezia Borgia, with which he is no doubt more familiar than I am. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is "Yes".

A57 (Gorton)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for the short-term improvement and long-term alteration of that part of the A57 trunk road situated in the Gorton district of Manchester.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): None, Sir. The A57 in Manchester is a local authority road.

Seat Belts (Public Service Vehicle Drivers)

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to make the fitting of seat belts for the drivers of public service vehicles compulsory.

Mr. Peyton: I would prefer to rely upon persuasion.

Miss Lestor: Is not it useless to run a campaign to persuade people to wear seat belts when many vehicles carrying passengers are not fitted with seat belts for the driver? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in a recent compensation claim case after an accident a woman was told by a judge that her damages would be reduced because she had not been wearing a seat belt? Does not this carry implications for the driver of any public service vehicle who may be involved in an accident?

Mr. Peyton: The point which the hon. Lady has raised is well worth consideration, though the evidence shows that the risk of this kind of injury in large passenger vehicles is less than it is in cars. Indeed, if I may quote the advice that I have been given, because it is so elegantly worded,
In an impact the retardation forces for a larger vehicle are much smaller.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is not there all the difference in the world between fitting seat belts and wearing them? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind for the private vehicle the type of safety belt which operates upon the closing of the door? Will he give the greatest encouragement to the development of that type of belt for public as well as private vehicles?

Mr. Peyton: That kind of appliance is being studied. Its drawback would be that it is by no means cheap, and would add materially to the cost of a motor car.

Mr. Ashley: When does the Minister propose to stop pussyfooting on the question of the compulsory wearing of seat belts for all drivers? Does he realise that thousands of doctors, nurses and social workers—and some hon. Members—spend a long time trying to help disabled people, and that he could

do more to prevent people from being disabled by announcing from the Dispatch Box that all seat belts must be worn?

Mr. Peyton: I have done my best in this cause by instituting what I hope has not been an ineffective campaign of showing people the enormous value of wearing seat belts and protecting themselves from the risk of grave injury in an accident. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the seriousness of such accidents. I would prefer to persuade; but I have said repeatedly in the House that if persuasion fails any Minister in my position would certainly be obliged to consider the alternatives.

M3 (Landscaping)

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete the landscaping work on the section of the M3 motorway between Lightwater and Chertsey.

Mr. Speed: Subject to weather conditions and the satisfactory completion of engineering works, the landscaping works should be completed during 1974.

Mr. Grylls: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the M3 motorway cuts through Chobham Common, which is one of the great beauty spots in the South of England, and that it is important that the Department's landscaping work should include the replacement of heather and gorse dug up for the motorway?

Mr. Speed: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. We shall certainly consider that matter. The planting will be carried out by the Forestry Commission. I hope that we shall be able to meet my hon. Friend's point.

Toxic Wastes (Dumping)

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what area of land is estimated to be occupied by dumped toxic wastes in England and Wales.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It would not be possible to discover all the sites on which toxic or other wastes have been dumped in the past. My Department has initiated a review of all the sites in the country on which wastes are currently being


tipped; the review is being carried out by all the refuse disposal authorities in England and Wales, with the help of river authorities and the Institute of Geological Sciences. The review is not yet complete, and I should like to take this opportunity of asking all those authorities which have not yet taken the action necessary to do so.

Mr. John: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that he will emphasise to local authorities that it is necessary to have good quality information if we are to improve the environment. Is it not high time that, following from that, the Government provided a positive code for the dumping of such wastes, to back up the negative Poisonous Wastes Act?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not agree that the Poisonous Wastes Act is entirely negative, but I accept the need for positive guidance. The aspect of the matter that arises in the hon. Member's constituency is being examined closely.

Home Ownership (Grants)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to provide a scheme of interest-free Government grants to assist young married couples to buy their first home.

Mr. Channon: First-time purchasers are already assisted through tax relief on mortgage interest or the option mortgage subsidy. But the most effective way of helping all purchasers is by increasing the rate of new private housebuilding.

Mrs. Oppenheim: In the excellent scheme proposed to me by Councillor John Robbins such grants as would be repayable if the house were sold would have the double advantage of reducing both the initial deposit and the total repayment for young couples who would otherwise find it impossible to purchase their own homes. It would also take the pressure off council waiting lists, and the cost would be considerably less than that of providing council accommodation for such couples in the medium term.

Mr. Channon: Naturally I shall look at any suggestions from my hon. Friend with the greatest care. I am anxious to make sure that any suggestions for help,

such as this, do not merely increase the demand. Unless we can increase the supply house prices will be pushed up further.

Mr. Crosland: With respect, the question is ridiculous. We are not discussing interest-free Government grants; we are discussing 9½ per cent. building society loans. Will the Minister care to comment on the fact that it is now generally agreed that at its next meeting—which by an odd coincidence will take place the day after the county elections—the Building Societies Association is certain to put up the interest rate to 9½ per cent., and may well go beyond that? Is that in line with the Government's policy? Has the Minister given one second's consideration to the practical proposals for avoiding these mad fluctuations by such methods as a building society stabilisation fund?

Mr. Channon: Naturally, I consider not only suggestions from my hon. Friend but any suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman cares to put forward. I am not prepared to answer a hypothetical question about what might or might not happen on 13th April.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend refuse to be deviated from his promise to examine the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim)? There is nothing ridiculous in giving all the help possible so that young people may become house owners.

Mr. Channon: I think that the whole House will agree with that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Minister accept that the Government are responsible for the 9½ per cent. or 10 per cent. interest rate? If there is a high interest policy without a stabilisation scheme as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) the building societies have no choice in the matter.

Mr. Channon: We shall have to wait and see what happens on Friday 13th April.

Planning Applications

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to introduce the


European system of identifying by poles the size and position of buildings for which planning applications have been submitted.

Mr. Graham Page: No, Sir. But my right hon. and learned Friend is now considering comments received on a draft circular about publicity for planning proposals which I described to the House in the debate on the Adjournment on 29th January.

Mr. Hannam: A great deal of the present dissatisfaction with planning procedures is caused by the lack of advance warning given when building applications are made. This idea of marking out an area with scaffolding poles, as is done on the Continent, would give everyone a chance to take what precautions he might want to protect his environment.

Mr. Page: The circular proposes site notices. In many cases there is a practical difficulty in showing the height of a proposed development by poles, which are not calculated to enhance the environment. When we are trying to encourage developers to provide land for housing, it might be difficult to suggest that every developer is "up the pole".

Mr. Spearing: When I put to the right hon. Gentleman a question about publication of planning proposals some time ago I asked whether he could make it obligatory on local authorities to publish a fortnightly register which could be duplicated and sent to every applicant for a nominal cost. Is that proposal included as part of the draft circular, and does my suggestion find favour with the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Page: There is a register for planning applications which is open for inspection. We are concerned with a proposal to provide for a site notice so that the public can see that a planning application has been made in respect of that land. It is on this that I am consulting local authorities.

Mr. Wiggin: Why does the circular deal with some planning applications only? Many of us feel that there could be site notices for all planning applications. The argument that this delays the application could be refuted if the notice were put up at the same time as the application was put in.

Mr. Page: i do not think a site notice is necessary for all planning applications. There are half a million such applications a year and some of them concern minor alterations to premises. We must be selective in this matter, and inform the public about developments which may affect neighbours.

Roads Programme

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce the next roads programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: Work is at various stages of preparation on £2,000 million worth of schemes which will complete a primary network of about 3,500 miles of high quality strategic trunk routes during the early 1980s. In addition, about £2,000 million worth of principal road schemes are at present being prepared by local authorities, and a further £600 million worth are in the firm programme.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern in the Northern Region about the inadequate allocation of moneys for raising road programmes? Does he not agree that to approve 16 schemes out of a total of 428 for the country is inadequate to meet the needs of the changing scene of the industrial North? The region vitally needs an increase in the number of schemes costing more than £250,000, which I believe is the yardstick in the Department. Will the right hon. Gentleman also give serious consideration to the possibility of increasing the number of schemes costing less than that amount, in order to provide minor link roads? Apart from being more labour-intensive they will lead to a greater use of existing major roads.

Mr. Peyton: I am aware of the importance of road development in the North-East, as elsewhere, but I consider that the North-East has not done so badly in the past. If the hon. Member has any particular worries I shall gladly consider them.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that completions of the existing programme are going forward at the rate planned and that expenditure is being incurred as estimated for? Will he assure us that this process will continue at an expanding rate?

Mr. Peyton: One would always wish progress to be quicker but we do our best to maintain the rate.

Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern in my constituency and neighbouring areas about the proposals to construct one motorway, or possibly two, to the projected new airport at Maplin? Will he try to assuage that misgiving by publishing, as soon as possible, some indication of the exact route which such motorways might take?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir.

Footpath Maps

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the names of the local authorities in England and Wales which do not produce copies of a definitive footpath map which can be purchased by the public.

Mr. Graham Page: Local authorities are required to keep definitive maps available for public inspection, but there is no obligation to produce copies for sale. I hope, however, that local authorities will do so where the demand warrants it. I will arrange for the information asked for to be collected and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Booth: Does the Minister agree that many authorities in England and Wales will not sell to any member of the public a map showing definitive footpaths within their areas? Does he agree that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for people fully to exercise their rights of access to the countryside if they cannot obtain such a map? It is a natural corollary of the statutory obligation to publish a definitive footpath map that it should be available for sale to the public.

Mr. Page: There are difficulties in providing copies for sale. These are county maps, and county councils have a statutory duty to maintain and keep available for public inspection definitive maps of footpaths and bridleways. The maps have to be made available for public inspection at one or more offices in each county district and, I think, within each parish. I could not impose on local authorities the duty to sell. Some of them do, and those which do not I ask to examine the process by which those who do manage to do so.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many new signposts have been put up showing splendid footpaths and bridleways, but that many of them peter out into ploughed fields? Only if the public have access to definitive footpath maps can this right be fully appreciated and exercised.

Mr. Page: I have said that the public do have access. It is a statutory duty on a county council to give access. In 1970 my Department urged all local authorities to improve public accessibility by displaying copies in office windows and making copies available in public libraries.

Mr. Mulley: I welcome the Minister's intention to encourage local authorities to make maps available, but is he aware that difficulties for walkers are created because the Ordnance Survey is not reprinting some of the larger-scale maps used by walkers, so that it will be doubly difficult for people to find their way? Is the Minister able to do anything to assist?

Mr. Page: There is a lot of misinformation about the 2½ in. map. I have answered previous questions about it.

Railway Property (Sale)

Mr. Bagier: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a general direction to British Rail when advertising property for sale not to refer to it as being of interest to speculators.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Bagier: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply? In answer to a previous question of mine he said that it was not Government policy that speculators should be invited to answer advertisements for the sale of publicly-owned land. In the constituency of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), British Rail has published an advertisement referring to land being of interest to developers, investors and speculators. If the right hon. Gentleman will not issue a general directive to British Rail, will he excuse British Rail for thinking that that is Government policy?

Mr. Peyton: It is unnecessary to issue a directive. This term was used by estate agents, as I think the hon. Gentleman is


aware, in the matter of the sale of the station site at Fourstones, near Hexham. The advertisement was used without the knowledge or approval of the British Railways Board, which has signified its disapproval.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is not the party political use of the term "speculator" now becoming a little ridiculous? May not anyone who builds a house for sale and thereafter sells it be called a speculator? If there were no speculators there would be no houses, and that would not be advantageous. Were not the houses in most of London's beautiful squares raised by speculators? Incidentally, No. 10 Downing Street was built by a speculator, but there has never been any unwillingness to occupy it.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend has done his best to put the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) in his place. It is not for me, nor is it within my powers, to remedy the ridiculous.

Mr. Freeson: Leaving aside the logs of wood of which Downing Street was once built, is it still Government policy that any nationalised industry or Government Department that has surplus property available should make a first offer to the local authority in whose area that property is situated? More specifically, what is the Government's intention with regard to the 160 acres of land—identified by his Department—that British Rail has available for residential development in the London area, for purchase, we hope, by local authorities, or by others for that purpose?

Mr. Peyton: Hardly any of the hon. Gentleman's remarks arise on the Question, which relates to the site of the Four-stones station, near Hexham.

Trunk Roads (Catering Services)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that catering establishments on major trunk roads do not obtain a monopoly and prevent lorries from using their establishments by not providing parking spaces; and whether he will assume responsibility for catering licences on trunk roads as on motorways.

Mr. Speed: No, Sir. Restrictive controls would not ensure better catering services for trunk road users.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware of the activities of Little Chef, owned by Trust Houses Forte, which has taken over almost 100 former pull-ins for transport drivers? Is he aware that the company's policy is not to allow lorries to be parked at its car parks? If the law provides that transport drivers must have a meal break every five hours, how are they to comply with it when they cannot park at these monopoly establishments?

Mr. Speed: I am aware that there is a lack of transport cafes and facilities for drivers, but there are adequate facilities on motorways. I cannot believe that public control of development by private enterprise on trunk roads would solve this problem.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is not the Minister aware that there is a general lack of good transport pull-ins on certain roads? If the law on drivers' hours is to be obeyed the drivers must have good pull-ins. Is the Minister telling the 300,000 holders of heavy goods vehicle driving licences to take sandwiches with them?

Mr. Speed: No, I am not telling them that. I am not aware that there is a general problem. I shall be discussing motorway facilities with the unions concerned, and if they wish to raise this matter I shall be glad to discuss it with them. I cannot believe that for my Department to take over the control of this sort of development on trunk roads is the way to solve the problem.

Overspill Estates

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future of overspill estates under local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. and learned Friend intends to issue a circular drawing the attention of local authorities to the difficulties which concern my hon. Friend. The circular will ask the authorities concerned to explore the possibility of voluntary arrangements to transfer ownership or, failing that, to secure


adequate representation of tenants' interests with the housing authority.

Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that indication, but I am apprehensive that recommendations to local authorities are not always heeded. In this case is there not a fundamental attack on the basic rights of citizens whereby they are bound by the policies of the housing authority, in the election of whose members they have no say? Is my hon. Friend aware of the damage which will be done to education and community welfare if this situation is perpetuated, and if local authorities ignore his right hon. and learned Friend's circular?

Mr. Channon: I note the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I know of his great interest in this subject, which he has raised in an Adjournment debate and on other occasions. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the letter sent to him by my hon. Friend. All these points will be borne in mind in the drafting of the circular.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Minister agree that the main problem in stress housing areas is the shortage of land? This land lies outside the new metropolitan counties. How can the Minister help local authorities with terrible housing problems to get the land they need for overspill purposes?

Mr. Channon: That raises slightly wider questions, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the minimum in a situation of that kind is that there should be adequate representation of the tenants' interests on the housing authority.

Green Belt (Bedfordshire)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the proposed green belt in South Bedfordshire will be confirmed; why there has been a delay in confirming it; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Graham Page: These green belt proposals were submitted in an informal sketch plan but have not been submitted for formal confirmation as an amendment to the county development plan. The county council is now preparing its structure plan, and this will include the green belt proposals.

Mr. Madel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first proposals for the green belt were submitted in 1960? Given that the new local authorities are to start work in April 1974, should not a firm decision be made by that date, especially as we no longer have the threat of the third London airport in Bedfordshire?

Mr. Page: Green belt approval has to go through certain statutory procedures. In this case the local planning authority has not set these procedures on foot. The authority, I am sure, will come forward with the green belt proposals in the structure plan, and that is the right place for them.

Itinerant Tinkers (A41)

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to deal with the problems caused by itinerant tinkers on the A41 between Bushey and Watford.

Mr. Graham Page: My Department has called a meeting, which is taking place today, to consider further with the local authorities concerned what steps might be taken.

Sir Gilbert Longden: I am glad to hear that answer. Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department, from the Secretary of State down, has long been aware of the scandalously polluted state of this road and the flagrant flouting of the law by these itinerant tinkers? Is he further aware that many suggestions have been advanced by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and other even wiser minds, but that nothing has been done about the situation?

Mr. Page: I know that my hon. Friend is most concerned about the situation, and I am also concerned about it. Unless sufficient sites are produced elsewhere it is difficult to force the gipsies off their existing site. I recollect that on one occasion when I ordered gipsy caravans off a site next door to another place, I was shocked on the following morning to learn that they had landed on the forecourt of Buckingham Palace.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend consider the situation in regard to litter? Is he satisfied that the laws are adequate, since these itinerant tinkers


are now being permitted to make a disgusting mess of the countryside with no action being taken against them?

Mr. Page: There are laws to deal with the situation—such as those involving public health nuisance, obstruction of highways, litter and many others—but the present law requires county authorities to provide sufficient sites within their areas. Although the Hertfordshire County Council has been one of the most forward authorities in providing sites it has not yet got to the point where we can say that there are sufficient sites and that designation can be applied to the whole county.

Sir Gilbert Longden: I regret that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I must give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been improved as a result of qualifying for the discretionary home improvement grant.

Mr. Channon: This information is not available in the form requested. Between 1949 and the end of 1972 discretionary grants were approved for a total of 1,138,000 dwellings in England and Wales.

Mr. Spriggs: Has the Minister any figures to show how many applications were rejected because local authorities have produced their own rules under the discretionary scheme, thus thwarting the opportunities of many thousands of people living in overcrowded conditions? Will the hon. Gentleman consider this matter? If I provide him with copies of the new rules produced by my own local authority will he say whether they are legal?

Mr. Channon: I shall be glad to consider any evidence that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put forward, and I am glad to have his support for the improvement grant scheme. However, I must tell him that it is believed in many quarters of the House that local authorities should have more rather than less discretion.

Mr. Kinsey: May I draw the Minister's attention to another anomaly in the discretionary grant system? Is he aware that although the occupiers of pre-war houses may apply for grants for modernisation purposes, and tenants who purchase may receive modernisation grants, existing municipal tenants who wish to modernise on their own are denied grants? Is that what the Government intend?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I entirely follow my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps I may consider the specific matter he has in mind. May I ask him to write to me on the point?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Minister agree that we have now got into a legal and administrative tangle on this subject, and that it is causing a great deal of worry to many people? We have entered into a good deal of correspondence about this matter. Will the hon. Gentleman help to sort it out?

Mr. Channon: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Act passed by a Labour Government is so unsatisfactory, but naturally we shall look into the matter.

West Cross Route (Inquiry)

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now publish the report of the inspector who presided at the public inquiry in 1972 into the proposed West Cross Route motorway from Holland Park Avenue to the Chelsea Basin.

Mr. Peyton: The decision on this inquiry will be announced as soon as possible. The report will be published at the same time as is the normal practice.

Mr. Jay: But as the inspector is widely believed to have reported against this important section of ringway, surely the Minister is not justified in withholding from the public any longer a report which he has had in his hands for three months?

Mr. Peyton: The report arose from a very long inquiry. I have had nothing to do with widespread beliefs. The right hon. Gentleman may be more closely associated with them than I am.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the GLC considered that this road


stood on its own, irrespective of any ring-way proposal? That being the case, and since the Layfield Report has been published, why cannot we now have the other report?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman has given himself the answer. That report is in a quite different category from the Layfield Report, which dealt with Ring-way 1. The other matter related to a road in which the GLC had intentions, in terms of local traffic. The report and the decision will be published simultaneously as soon as possible.

Rents (Determination)

Mr. Lamborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to ensure that rent scrutiny panels, in fixing rents for accommodation, have regard to the percentage below market valuation which the local authorities concerned are charging tenants who wish to purchase comparable homes.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): No, Sir. The principles on which fair rents are to be determined are laid down by statute. But in any case local authorities sell their houses at market value.

Mr. Lamborn: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, in view of the tremendous escalation which has occurred in property prices, if local authorities are to sell houses they will find it necessary to charge less than the market price—and, indeed, that the Greater London Council has applied to sell at 30 per cent. below market value? Does this mean that we are moving even further along the road towards two nations in housing? Is not the situation discriminatory against those who occupy rented accommodation?

Mr. Eyre: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his assumption. The price at which local authorities sell houses is the market value. This may be either an unrestricted open market value, where no resale conditions are imposed, or a restricted market value which reflects the offer-back conditions which are imposed.

Mr. Freeson: I do not wish to pursue the hon. Gentleman harshly on this point, but I think he is confusing the House in the light of the recommendations, advice and circulars put out by his Department

to local authorities on the sale of council houses. He said that councils are selling property at market level subject to various conditions. Will he make it clear, on the advice of the Department and on the basis of authorised schemes approved by the Department, that local authorities are fixing given percentage discounts of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., which will reduce the price at which these houses will sell to below the market level?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a sale is sometimes effected without restriction, in which event the market level applies. But when restrictive conditions are imposed the market value is reduced on account of those restrictions, since the property subject to those restrictions has a market value which is reflected in the price.

Road Signs (Metrication)

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes that road signs should carry metric distance figures.

Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add at this stage to paragraph 107 of the White Paper on Metrication. Command No. 4880.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister sanction metric distance figures in Wales when road signs there become bilingual? Will this not save a lot of money, and will he allow Wales to take a lead in this matter?

Mr. Peyton: It is not within my responsibility or power to stop Wales taking a lead in any matter.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Minister ensure that no unnecessary expense is incurred in this way? Does he accept that road signs in metric terms might just as well be written in alternate words of Greek and Chinese so far as the public are concerned, and that there is no necessity for a change, nor is it desirable?

Mr. Peyton: I think that in part of his supplementary question my hon. Friend lent himself slightly to exaggeration.

Compulsory Purchase (Housing Stress Areas)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether


he will make a further statement concerning his policy when considering applications for compulsory purchase orders in housing stress areas.

Mr. Channon: Each case is considered on its merits, but I have no new general statement to make at present.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the Minister pretending to be unaware of the speed at which middle and lower income houses for rent are disappearing in city centres? Will he consider the report of the Colville-Tavistock Study which I have sent to him and which was prepared by the Conservative Kensington and Chelsea Council? Since that report says that unless speedy action is taken by local authorities to acquire such houses as are left in stress areas they will disappear completely, will he take action on this matter?

Mr. Channon: I am studying that report, which is exceedingly valuable, but at the moment I have no general statement to make in addition to previous Government statements.

Mr. Crosland: Does the Minister accept that this is a desperately urgent matter because of the speed at which rented accommodation in parts of London is totally disappearing? Will he accept that he has had on his desk for some time the Layfield Report, which makes a strong central point of trying to persuade the Minister to change his mind about compulsory purchase orders?

Mr. Channon: I am not wholly out of sympathy with what both Members have said. I am considering this as a matter of urgency, but I cannot make a statement today.

New House Prices

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average price of a new house at the latest available date and two years earlier than that date.

Mr. Eyre: The average price of houses mortgaged with building societies in the fourth quarter of 1972 was £8,571 and for the fourth quarter of 1970 was £5,206.

Mr. Hardy: Those figures are very unsatisfactory. Does the Minister agree that the average weekly expenditure now

incurred on purchasing and maintaining just an ordinary house now exceeds the average weekly wage of many millions of workers? Does the Minister further agree that the situation is likely to deteriorate after the local elections, when interest rates rise to 10 per cent?

Mr. Eyre: No. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the building society figures show that first-time purchasers and young borrowers are holding their own. Not only that, the number of mortgages granted to borrowers with incomes up to the average industrial manual worker's earnings, comparing 1970 with 1972, went up from 114,000 to 147,000.

Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend consider having conversations with the building societies and the Building Societies Association and indicating to them that it might be undesirable for them to impose a higher rate for new borrowers, which would include a large number of younger applicants?

Mr. Eyre: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxieties. However, as I pointed out earlier, the building society meeting to which the Question relates will not take place until 13th April.

Mr. Crosland: Ministers have shown their power to persuade the building societies to postpone their rate increase until the day after the county elections; could they not persuade the societies to postpone it rather longer?

Mr. Eyre: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the date of the meeting was fixed by the Building Societies Association.

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers in Brussels this week.
The Council had a preliminary discussion at its meeting in Brussels yesterday on the Commission's proposals for farm prices for 1973–74. These proposals, full details of which are being made available


to the House in the normal way, include a substantial increase in the price of beef, and smaller increases for pigmeat, rye and milk.
On top of these increases, it is proposed that the prices of almost all products should be raised by a margin of 2·76 per cent., representing the amount by which the currencies of the Benelux countries have appreciated in relation to the Community's unit of account. By adding this amount to the price proposals and by adjusting by a similar percentage the rate of exchange used by Benelux and Germany in converting their currencies for CAP purposes, it is proposed to eliminate for Benelux, and substantially reduce for Germany, the need to compensate for the present disparities between their actual rates of exchange and their official rates. Although the immediate effect of these proposals on United Kingdom consumer prices will be very limited, the longer-term effect on our prices could be more serious.
In putting the British point of view, I stressed the importance of avoiding anything that could lead to higher food prices for consumers and of looking to means of support other than raising end prices in order to make necessary adjustments between commodities. I acknowledged the need to find a solution to the difficulties which currency differences create. But I urged that it would be wrong to seek to overcome the problems which such differences make for the CAP by raising prices. To attempt to do so would greatly add to the difficulties of settling the Community's agricultural pricing policy for the coming year. The Council will resume consideration of the proposals at its meeting in Luxembourg on 9th and 10th April.
The Council agreed to suspend the common tariff on imports of old crop potatoes until 1st June, and we shall take corresponding action to suspend our own small tariff of £1 per ton as soon as practicable. Further consideration is being given to a Commission proposal to suspend the common tariff on new potatoes until 1st May. I also raised in the Council the question of a refining margin for Commonwealth sugar.
As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) on 23rd March, the refining margin resulting from the arrange-

ments agreed by the Community in January is not currently adequate to ensure the refining and marketing of the sugar we are committed to take under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I reminded the Council that I had told it in January that, if this happened, measures would have to be taken to rectify the situation. I informed it that I should be making supplementary payments to refiners in the United Kingdom. In my view these payments could not be regarded as contrary to Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome as they could not bring about distortion of trade between member States.
In respect of the period 1st February to 30th June, these payments are expected to total about £3·5 million. They will not represent extra cost to the Exchequer because they will be more than offset by receipts of import levy on the sugar concerned. A Supplementary Estimate will, however, be necessary and will be presented in due course. Pending approval of this, recourse will be had to the Contingencies Fund. The payments will be designed to bring the margin up to £17 per ton, on the basis of a yield of 95·6 per cent. I am discussing with the refiners the precise arrangements involved. I have also informed the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement representatives meeting in London today of the position. I shall be considering later what may be necessary to meet any continuing requirement after 30th June.

Mr. Shore: I welcome the Government's conversion to the view that it is of the utmost importance to avoid doing anything that will further increase the high prices which are already being paid for food by consumers.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many take the view, having looked at the course of prices in Europe and noted the increases that have taken place in CAP prices during recent years, and noting, too, that the actual cost of the CAP has risen from over £1,000 million to £2,000 million in three years, that it is not just a question of preventing CAP prices going up higher but that they have already gone up far too high and that they should be brought down?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reason for the proposals to increase across the board agricultural


prices or food prices by 2·76 per cent., in addition to the individual price increases for individual commodities, is that the Community managers in the Commission wish to bring together in relation to the unit of account the different prices which national Governments, because of the changes in their own currencies around the unit of account, are now having to charge? In other words, is it not the case that these proposals have no agricultural justification and that they belong entirely to the requirement to unify prices on the basis of the unit of account? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House and to the country—this is what my right hon. and hon. Friends want—that he will not allow and will not consent to increases in food prices in the common agricultural policy this year, and that if need be he will use what we were assured during our long debates on the European Economic Community that the British Government would have in the Council of Ministers—namely, a veto on any proposals so to raise such prices?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman now agree, having had his first experience of CAP negotiations, that he would have been in a far better position if he had not in the first place gone inside the cage of the CAP, in which he now finds himself rattling the bars from the inside, and had negotiated change from the outside?

Mr. Godber: If we had not gone inside the EEC we would have had no opportunity to influence the price structure within the EEC.
I have made it quite clear that in my view some of the prices are too high. We are seeking to bring them down. That is one of the matters with which we are concerned. It has been proposed as part of the package to bring down the price of butter. That has been proposed by the Commission. That is a proposal that will have our support.
It is not true to say, as the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggested, that the 2·76 per cent. has no agricultural content. The Commission feels that it is entitled to some increases. It is utilising that figure as a means of helping to simplify the problem, as I indicated in my statement, concerning

Benelux and Germany in particular. The main impact will be more severe on Germany and the Benelux than on other countries. It is, therefore, difficult to quantify this whole approach.
I said yesterday in Brussels that I thought it a mistake to involve agricultural and monetary matters in one proposal. We in the United Kingdom feel that it would be useful to have a separate arrangement for scaling down the disparities in monetary affairs and to look at agricultural prices separately. I am advocating this course in Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to our use of the veto. It is our firm intention to use our full influence within the Community, but we do not go into the Community talking about vetoes because that is not the way to make progress.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like the help of the House, if it will give it to me. We have an extremely important debate to follow. Nearly 40 right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to speak. There is also a Ten Minute Rule Bill. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members can be fairly brief in questions to the Minister of Agriculture on his statement. I am sure the House will understand if I endeavour to keep them brief.

Sir Robin Turton: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that he has the support of the housewives of Britain in the stand he is making against price rises? But if, as he said in his reply, he is not going to exercise a veto at a later time, that weakens his position. I hope that he will revise that reply in order to make it clear that, on 19th April, if the other nine members will not give way, Britain will exercise her right of veto.

Mr. Godber: I did not specifically say that Britain would not exercise the veto. I said that it is not appropriate to talk at this moment in terms of exercising it. I believe that we can influence—and the whole purpose of my speech yesterday was to do so—thinking in the Community in the direction which we believe is not only in the interests of the British housewife but also in the economic interests of the Community, because it is against producing surpluses.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How will these proposals affect the determinations recently negotiated with the National Farmers' Union in this country? In the light of these developments, what are we to make of the statement by the Prime Minister to the Conservative Central Council on 14th July 1971, when he said that British entry into the EEC would not mean an increase of more than a halfpenny on the cost of living in each of the first six years? Should not the Prime Minister be here to apologise for so grossly misleading the British people? Where is he?

Mr. Godber: It is not a question of grossly misleading the country. The estimates of the present Government on this matter were similar to those made by the Labour Government. The effect of these price increases, if made, would not make a very great difference in total on top of the estimates which we have made and of which the hon. Gentleman has quoted part. If these proposals were implemented, the impact on Britain at the moment would be very limited. It would affect the intervention prices for all commodities but not market prices, except insofar as if world prices were to go down. It would affect the price for butter but this would be compensated by some degree of subsidy. The total impact on the British housewife of these proposals if implemented would be minimal. That does not mean that we do not think that in the long term they are disadvantageous, and that is why I opposed them yesterday.

Mr. Brewis: Did my right hon. Friend call the attention of the other agricultural ministers to the great increase in cereal acreage in the United States and point out to them that this might lead to a big gap between Common Market and world prices?

Mr. Godber: The whole question of the United States' proposals for increased costs and the question of supplies generally will be matters for discussion in the GATT talks later this year. We have already had preliminary discussions with the United States and are having discussions with our EEC partners. There will be an important meeting of the OECD in Paris next month which I hope to attend.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In a part of his statement which appeared to be relatively extempore, the right hon. Gentleman said that he expected that the effect on prices might be minimal in the short term but might be disadvantageous in the long term. He repeated that view a moment ago. Can he now tell us when he thinks that this "long term" begins, and why he thinks that there would be more serious and more disadvantageous effects in the long term?

Mr. Godber: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. We have a five-year transitional period. The full impact of the proposals, if implemented, would not take effect until five years from the date of our joining. The reckonable increases are 2·76 per cent. across the board plus specific proposals for beef, rye and milk. If one applies this over the five years, one sees that the immediate impact is small, but the impact grows and will amount to a maximum for most commodities of 2·76 per cent. at the end of the five years —the end of the fourchette arrangements under which we went into the Community. In other words, these arrangements will extend over the next four years of the fourchette arrangements. It is a gradual process and the total effect would be 2·76 per cent. for most commodities but a bit more for beef, rye and milk.

Mr. Marten: My right hon. Friend said that it was only because we were in the Common Market that we could use our influence to change the policy. Surely if we had not joined the Common Market in the first place we would have had no need to change the policy.
On the question of the sugar refining margin, my right hon. Friend rather joined the payment or subsidy for the margin with the quantity of Commonwealth sugar that we have to take in. May we have an assurance that this refining margin will have no long-term effect on the Government's eventual bankable assurance to take 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar?

Mr. Godber: I think that it is right that we should be in a position to influence this policy, whether inside or outside the EEC. I believe that, with food prices and world conditions as they are today, it is important that the trading blocs should understand one another's point of


view. One cannot isolate oneself from these effects, whether one is inside or outside the EEC.
My hon. Friend asked about the sugar refining margin. The point is that the position remains as it is under protocol 17 leading up to the end of 1974 under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I was reaffirming in the arrangements that the danger which had arisen in regard to the inadequate refining margin is being met in the way I have described. I have explained the situation today to the Commonwealth sugar producers in London. I think they are satisfied.
My hon. Friend also raised the wider question of protocol 22 as it appears after the end of 1974. This is another matter we are discussing in Brussels but what I have announced in my statement will have no impact at Brussels on the arrangements under protocol 22 or on the Lancaster House agreement of 1971.

Mr. Torney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's attempt to freeze the price of food has been an utter failure and that it makes complete nonsense of the wages freeze, particularly for the lower-paid workers and pensioners? In areas such as Bradford, people want to know what the Government are going to do about it.

Mr. Godber: I am not sure how that question relates to my statement.

Mr. Tomey: Because food prices are going up.

Mr. Godber: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when we introduced the prices standstill we made it clear that fresh food was not included, for reasons of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware —world food prices and conditions, and so on. World prices have risen. We are doing all we can to steady the rise. I would have thought that my statement in Brussels yesterday would help in this regard.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we think he is putting up a strong fight on behalf of British consumers? Does his statement imply any change in time towards farmgate prices here or towards the expansion of home agricultural production?

Mr. Godber: I am happy to give the assurance that this means no change in our attitude. What we have to do over the five years is to get our prices to the Community price level. What I announced in the price review determinations last week was part of that package. But in addition we have recognised the absolute need to increase total home food production as a major help to the British housewife. If only the Labour Government had done a bit more of that when they were in power, the housewife would have been better off.

Mr. Mackintosh: Purely on the agricultural side of prices, as by far the largest price increase is in beef, presumably because of the short-fall in beef supplies, will the right hon. Gentleman, when he opposes these price increases in Brussels, link it with a desire for long-term changes by recommending a premium on beef production rather than the use of an end price to stimulate output?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful for that comment. It is precisely one of the points I made yesterday in my speech in Brussels. If we can get more inducement in the early stages of production and hold end prices, that will help the Community and the housewife and lead towards a more sensible balance. I said that yesterday and I shall seek to achieve this aim.

Mr. Farr: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever happens on 9th and 10th April, he will agree to nothing which will curtail the present rate of expansion of farming in this country?

Mr. Godber: I can safely say that nothing likely to be agreed then will curtail the expansion of British agriculture. The indications given in the price review which I announced last week show clearly that we are on an expansion course. The prices are designed to encourage that, and indeed it is an essential part of the Governments's policy to produce more food here and to help the farmer and the housewife.

Mr. Jay: After his experiences in Brussels this week, does the Minister still pretend that the EEC has had no effect on the rise in food prices in this country?

Mr. Godber: I do not pretend in regard to this matter or anything else. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the EEC has not had an impact in regard to consumer prices in this country at this time. He is perfectly aware that the impact is one of world shortage in regard to meat and cereals, which are the basic foods. What I have said is that in fact rises in Community prices are beginning to have some effect now. The first thing affected is butter, and I have indicated that there is a proposal for a subsidy on butter which would help in that regard. But so far as prices in this country are concerned, it is world events, not the Common Market, that have caused these rises.

Mr. Shersby: With regard to sugar, will not my right hon. Friend agree that the amount of approximately £4 which represents the difference between the margin accepted by the Government and the margin agreed at Brussels on 23rd January is not a subsidy but a means of achieving the kind of margin agreed between the refiners and the Government in 1970.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not a ruling against reading questions?

Mr. Shersby: Does he not also agree that a levy contributed to Community funds which arose out of the Brussels agreement recognises the efficiency of the cane industry?

Mr. Godber: So far as I was able to hear my hon. Friend, I can confirm that the increase is to meet a shortfall and is certainly not due to a deficiency with regard to our refining industry. The problem arises because of the different situation with regard to the refining in this country and the refining in the Community of cane sugar. The problem all along has been that there has been a different basis in this regard. The amount of cane sugar in the Community is relatively small and is used mainly for speciality purposes and cubing, which attracts a premium. Therefore, it has been difficult to persuade our Community partners that the market price would be lower than they had expected. Because of this, we had to introduce the subsidy, which restored the position to what it was before 1st February this year.

Mr. Michael Foot: In view of the extremely serious statement that the Minister has made affecting the whole question of rising prices and inflation, and in view of the apparent position that the Government are still resisting the proposals that others are seeking to impose upon us—"the strong fight" referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison)—does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he would be assisted in that resistance before the next meeting in April by a resolution of this House of Commons on the matter? Therefore, will he ask his right hon. Friend to provide for us to enable him to continue his resistance next week? Will he not have consultations to ensure that the House of Commons shall have a chance of influencing this question of food prices?

Mr. Godber: I am always grateful for proposals of support from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), but in this regard, although my right hon. Friend has heard what he said, there are certainly ways and means for the Opposition to choose if they wish to debate matters in this House. There is no difficulty about that. If he is proposing a vote of censure because we are resisting price increases, I shall be very happy to respond. There are ample opportunities, and in any case I believe that I have been able to make quite clear to the Community the views of the people of Britain.

RE-CYCLING OF COMPONENTS OF USED MOTOR VEHICLES BILL

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require manufacturers of motor vehicles to design such vehicles, after 31st December 1975, so that their components can be easily re-cycled, so saving the raw material for further use.
In view of the fact that their are 40 speakers in the debate on Northern Ireland I will bring in what will be a Two-Minute Rule Bill.
This Bill is first of all about finite resources—that is, that if at the design stage, the eventual death of the vehicle were taken into account much more metal and other material could be recaptured from used cars than would otherwise be the case on current designs. The crucial


thing is that thought should be given at the design stage and that the eventual death of the vehicles should be taken into account.
I will spare the House all the technical details, and will just say that Donald Jensen, the Directors of Emission of Ford, Michigan, Chrysler and Leyland have all made the point that the recapturing of material would be much easier and of higher quality if it were thought about at the design stage, and metals made more easily separable.
The second point is that this Bill would give every economic incentive to people who were willing to take their cars to a metal recapturing unit. In a sense, it would serve also to do something about all those dumps of disused vehicles that litter the whole of Western Europe.
It may well be said that this is all very well but why on earth should legislation, why should a Bill, be necessary? For one rather self-evident reason, really, that no single company is going to go ahead and take on the extra costs of doing this at an early stage of the design, if other manufacturing bodies are not going to do the same thing, because then that company would be at a competitive disadvantage.
This Bill has been thought out, it has been discussed in some detail with the motor manufacturers, it has been discussed with the British Scrap Federation. I ask the House to take my word for it that it is worth giving a Second Reading to the Bill. I will only say in addition that when the Bill is published in full the House can judge, but in the meantime it would be an abuse of the time of the House to carry this any further.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tarn Dalyell, Mr. James Dunn, Mr. George Darling, and Mrs. Lena Jeger.

RE-CYCLING OF COMPONENTS OF USED MOTOR VEHICLES

Bill to require manufacturers of motor vehicles to design such vehicles, after 31st December 1975, so that their components can be easily re-cycled, so saving the raw material for further use, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th March and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the Prime Minister to move his motion on Northern Ireland, may I inform the House that I propose to select the amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), which I suggest he should move during the course of the resumed debate tomorrow:
but regrets that the White Paper does not provide for adequate Parliamentary representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I do not propose to select the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) nor the manuscript amendment of which notice has been given to me in the name of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). No doubt those hon. Members will be able to deploy their arguments in the course of the debate on the motion or the amendment.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the amendment put down in my name and that of the hon. Member for—

Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order with regard to the selection of amendments?

Mr. Kilfedder: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: There can be no such thing. There can be no point of order about the selection of amendments. It must be another point of order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today this House is debating something that is relevant to Northern Ireland, and every Member for Northern Ireland must necessarily have an interest in this debate. Could I draw your attention to the fact that the amendment which you have selected actually approves the White Paper, whereas the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is an amendment which gives an opportunity to those in Northern Ireland who are of the opinion that this White Paper should not be approved. Can I not ask you to reconsider your decision?

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members take the view which the hon. Member has put forward they can vote against the motion.


I have considered this matter carefully and I have made my decision. It is for me.

4.0 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move,
That this House approves the White Paper on Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals (Command Paper No. 5259).
Naturally, I will try to listen to as much of this debate as possible but because of my other official engagements as Prime Minister over the next two days I hope the House will extend its customary indulgence to me if I cannot be here as much as I should like.
The White Paper which the House is asked to approve represents a major turning point in the affairs of Northern Ireland. That fact is acknowledged not just in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom but in the world outside. This White Paper is an historic document. Not even the longest-serving Members of the House can have personal experience of debating a new constitution for part of the United Kingdom.
The White Paper does not just recommend a new constitution for Northern Ireland. It contains proposals affecting every part of public and political life in the Province, proposals which will bear directly on the lives of every city, town and village and every family and individual. These proposals are the product of a year of detailed consultation and preparation since the Government took responsibility for direct rule.
I know I speak for the whole House when I say how grateful we are to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to his staff, both those based on London and those based on Belfast, for their patient and untiring work. At no time have they spared themselves. A major part of their achievement is that I am able to recommend to the House today the constructive, and I believe that they are acknowledged as far-reaching, proposals set out in the White Paper.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been alone in showing steadfastness and perseverance during this difficult year. The same qualities have been shown in abundance by the security forces and by the citizens of Northern Ireland. But the Secretary of State's

burden has been a lonely one, and it is right that the House should today pay a tribute to him. Whatever the future may hold, my right hon. Friend by sheer force of character, courage and humanity has earned for himself an honoured and respected place in the history of Ireland.
I believe that the House would wish me to say again how much we owe to the Governor of Northern Ireland and to Lady Grey for their devoted and selfless service to the Province. I know that the advice which the Governor has been able to give to my right hon. Friend day by day has always been wise and constructive. Both Lord and Lady Grey are held in the highest regard throughout Northern Ireland, and during this difficult period they have consistently provided a focus for stability and good sense.
We in the United Kingdom Government have never wished to work out by ourselves the terms of a settlement and then impose it on the people of Northern Ireland. Over the past 12 months the Secretary of State has met and discussed with all the parties and interests in Northern Ireland how they think the Province can best be governed. A large measure of agreement emerged from these consultations, and, now that the White Paper is published, the proposals are widely thought to be a fair and reasonable basis for progress. In this context I gladly acknowledge the support already given by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party.
Given the long history of differences between the two communities in Northern Ireland it is inevitable that no single set of constitutional proposals could be devised which would be agreed by all points of view. The reason is simple enough. Any set of proposals which met all the wishes of one community would be unacceptable to the other. Today I ask all the people of Northern Ireland to look at our proposals in a positive and constructive light. I ask them not to think of demands they may have failed to secure but of opportunities which now lie open to them. I ask them to reflect not on past struggles which divided the communities but on common interests which can now unite them. Talk of demands and concessions is the language of a past which failed. But talk of


opportunities and common interests offers the promise of a peaceful future.
Many members of the majority community have asked that the Province should retain extensive responsibility for its own affairs. To them, we offer devolution, to the Assembly and to the Executive, of a wide range of powers of Government, both legislative and executive.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the power that will be devolved on the Stormont Assembly and the Executive there will be equivalent to the power held by the old Stormont Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I am about to deal with certain aspects of this. My hon. Friend must know that the full details of this are clearly set out in the White Paper, saying what is to be reserved for Westminster and what is to be devolved.
Many of the majority have asked for assurances about the future of the border. To them we offer an unequivocal statutory declaration, in the constitutional Bill, that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom and will not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
On 24th March 1972 when I told the House that we were taking over full responsibility for Northern Ireland I announced that there would be a plebiscite to deal with the border. That plebiscite has been held. We, the Government, kept our promise. At the same time, I expressed the hope that it would enable the border to be taken out of Northern Ireland politics for a period so that the parties could concentrate on other matters of common interest.
None of these proposals which meet the requirements of the majority community are proposals to which any fair-minded member of the minority community could reasonably object. In turn, the representatives of the minority have sought fairness of treatment and equality of opportunity. To them we offer firm statutory assurances against the abuse of legislative or executive powers. For the individual both in his job and in his other activities we offer the comprehensive protection of a charter of human rights.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On the question of legislation, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is the intention of the Government to repeal the Flags and Emblems Act (Northern Ireland)?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps we can wait until the legislation comes before the House.
In turn, representatives of the minority have asked for a real share in executive power. We have said that the Secretary of State must be satisfied, before powers are devolved, that the Executive is not solely based upon any single party if that party draws its support and its elected representation virtually entirely from one section of a divided community. None of these are proposals to which any fair-minded member of the majority party could reasonably object.
The White Paper does much more than just strike a balance between the interests of the two communities. Many of our recommendations, and the White Paper package as a whole, are of equal value and importance to both communities. It is equally in the interests of both communities that for the first time since partition we offer a real prospect of government by the consent of all the people of Northern Ireland and, more than that, of participation in government by members from both communities.
It is in the interests of both communities that the remaining parts of the United Kingdom pledge to their fellow-citizens in Northern Ireland not only their continuing financial support, now running at about £300 million a year, but the protection of the British Armed Forces for their lives and property. It is in the interests of both communities that we restate as firmly as ever before our determination to bring an end to violence and to restore the rule of law.
Our constitutional proposals are themselves aimed at bringing an end to violence, for no terrorist organisation will find any but limited support in a country where stable and accepted institutions are being freely operated; but I acknowledge that this can be achieved only over a period of time. Meanwhile the Government maintain their priority to combat terrorism from whatever source it may come.

Mr. R. T. Paget: In 1922 we failed to beat the IRA, and we gave to the Irish Free State the opportunity to fight the IRA. It beat the IRA by using ruthless methods. Now we are creating an Assembly but we are denying it powers to fight the IRA and violence. We are keeping that for ourselves in a situation where we have manifestly failed and where the morale of our Army is crumbling because it has lost confidence in our political leadership. This is the situation in which we find ourselves.

The Prime Minister: I have seldom heard a more outrageous statement in this House. There is absolutely no evidence that the morale of Her Majesty's forces is crumbling. The morale of Her Majesty's forces, despite all the difficulties, is extremely high; and so long as forces which are provided from the whole of the United Kingdom are engaged in Northern Ireland the responsibility will rest here at Westminster.
The House may be interested—this is concerned with the point the hon. and learned Gentleman has just raised—to have the latest figures for arms finds and for persons charged with terrorist offences. To go back no further than the beginning of this year, 333 illegally held guns of various types have been recovered, 189 of them from Catholics and 144 from Protestants. More than 4,000 lb of explosives have been found, rather more than half of it in the hands of Protestants; and the security forces have recovered more than 29,000 rounds of ammunition, about 13,500 from Catholics and 15,500 from Protestants.
As far as arrests are concerned, again since the beginning of the year, 92 Catholics and 83 Protestants have been arrested on firearms charges, 32 Catholics and seven Protestants on explosives charges and six Catholics and 19 Protestants on charges of murder. Over the same period there were 157 convictions for specific criminal offences relating to terrorism. These figures speak for themselves. It is clear that there is absolutely no justification for the allegations that the security forces are biased in their activities towards one community or the other.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1968, when figures were first kept,
 
165 soldiers have been killed, and of these 110 have been killed since March of last year when Stormont was suspended? Is he further aware that more than 99 per cent. of these have been killed by the IRA and that the IRA have themselves claimed these killings?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of these figures. I was giving the House the latest figures for action taken by the security forces—and effective action at that. With the Government's full support, the security forces will continue to pursue remorselessly all terrorists, whether from the IRA or from extreme Protestant organisations. While intimidation and threats still prevent the normal judicial machinery from operating with full effect some form of detention remains necessary. But the Detention of Terrorists Order is being used to deal with terrorists from both communities, and detention orders are issued not on the dictate of a Minister but by impartial commissioners hearing the evidence available to the security forces.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: The right hon. Gentleman has given a sectarian breakdown of the figures of arms and gun finds. Could he perhaps inform the House what the breakdown is on detention orders and how many Catholics and how many Protestants have been detained without trial?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady would like to have those figures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with the matter in his speech tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon for a further interruption, but, on reflection, is not it regrettable that we should be talking about captures of arms and arrests in sectarian terms? Should we not refrain from speaking of the two communities in a religious sense? Are we not concerned with two sections of the population; namely, the law-abiding and the terrorists?

The Prime Minister: It may be regrettable but it corresponds to the facts of life in Northern Ireland at the present time. I have deliberately given these figures to deal with allegations which, as my hon. Friend knows, are widely made,


that the security forces are biased towards one community or the other. The White Paper describes the further steps we propose to take in this matter, and the Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Diplock Commission should enable us sharply to reduce the impact of intimidation on the processes of the courts. The Bill will also repeal the Special Powers Act and re-enact only those provisions which we judge essential to counter the damage inflicted by terrorism and intimidation on the normal machinery of justice.
The provisions of the Bill, including the provisions for detention, will operate only as long as Parliament here is satisfied that they are required by the emergency in Northern Ireland. I have heard some criticism of the fact that provision should be made for any of these powers to be maintained. But I know of no country which does not make provision for an emergency, and it will be under parliamentary control here at Westminster.
In his speech tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will comment on the proposals in the White Paper in the light of his personal experience over the past 12 months in Northern Ireland. I would like today to deal first with the position of Northern Ireland inside the United Kingdom as a whole, and then with relations between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and, as I have stated, will remain so unless and until her people decide otherwise. That is a fact. Those self-styled loyalists who profess anxiety on this score can only arouse fears which are wholly groundless among their supporters. No doubt it is the aim of some that such fears should be aroused even though there can be no basis for them; but the people of this country will not be slow to assess their true motives and the falsity of their claims of loyalty to the United Kingdom and the Crown.
Then there are those who suggest that the White Paper somehow makes the people of Northern Ireland into second-class citizens of the United Kingdom because we have not proposed either complete integration or an increase in Northern Ireland representation at

Westminster. If integration had been wholly supported, that approach could have been considered further. But the truth is that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his party, very few people in Northern Ireland have indicated that they want to see the permanent abolition of all institutions of government in the province; but it is also equally clear that integration would be wholly unacceptable to a substantial element in the population.
To those who argue for increased representation at Westminster I would just like to point out that under our proposals Northern Ireland will have a unique set of institutions of its own, with extensive governmental powers. Indeed, in some respects the new Northern Ireland Assembly will have more powers than its predecessor. We intend that it should have a large measure of freedom of decision in its choice of financial priorities and policies, subject to overriding United Kingdom interests; and it will, for the first time, be able to legislate on some matters which have hitherto been reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament. That is the answer to the question from my hon. Friend. He will find that that is set out in detail in paragraphs 83 and 89, particularly the latter, of the White Paper.
Moreover, on this point of Westminster representation, the House expects to consider later this year the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. While we cannot yet know what the Royal Commission may recommend, it is within its terms of reference to propose new institutions in other parts of the United Kingdom. If it were to do so, such proposals might well have implications for Northern Ireland as well as for Westminster, and it can fairly be argued that this is not the right time to make changes in Northern Ireland representation here at Westminster.
I add one further point. I must say how much I deplore the talk from some commentators and leader writers of gerrymandering Northern Ireland representation at Westminster. The Westminster constituencies in Northern Ireland have not been, and are not, under challenge. It is wrong in this discussion, especially


at a time when elections on the basis of proportional representation are shortly to be held in Northern Ireland on the basis of the Westminster constituencies, to suggest in any way that there is gerrymandering in this respect. There are sound reasons which I have again announced today for the attitude taken to representation at Westminster in the White Paper. I suggest that those reasons ought to be examined on their merits and not on the basis of the emotive call of gerrymandering.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not wish to divert the Prime Minister from his main theme, but does he accept that, quite apart from what the Kilbrandon Committee may report, what is proposed for Northern Ireland will raise similar questions for Scotland and Wales?

The Prime Minister: That was the point that I was making. The Royal Commission may make specific proposals about Scotland and Wales, quite apart from anything that it may say about Northern Ireland.
The proposals in the White Paper, and in particular the proposals outlawing discrimination, are designed precisely to ensure that no citizen of Northern Ireland need fear treatment as a second-class citizen but that all are first-class citizens of the United Kingdom. It is precisely because the people of Northern Ireland are fully acknowledged as citizens of the United Kingdom that the country as a whole readily agrees to give very generous financial support to Northern Ireland. It is precisely for this reason that this country is sending its young men to fight, and in some cases, alas, to die in the struggle against terrorism.
However, there is another side to this. If the United Kingdom as a whole has an obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, they in turn must accept the same social and political obligations, the same standards of behaviour, as the rest of the country. This means that we must see an end to civil disobedience, to rent and rate strikes, to unwillingness to co-operate with the police. It means an end to private armies, and to the obstruction of those whose task it is to protect public order.
It is now very widely accepted in Northern Ireland that there should be new institutional arrangements for consultation and co-operation between the North and the Republic. There have been periods in the past when such cooperation has taken place, mainly at official level, in certain spheres. But the suspicions and distrust which have existed over the last 50 years, on both sides of the border, have prevented the advantages of such co-operation to both sides being developed further.
I remember thinking how extraordinary it was that when I arranged for the meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Republic and Northern Ireland and myself at Chequers in September 1971 it was the first time that the three Prime Ministers in these closely-knit islands had met for nearly 50 years. Looking back on it now, it seems even more extraordinary. But good relations exist between Westminster and Dublin. They existed with Mr. Lynch, and they have been established already with Mr. Cosgrave. I am glad that this is so. I believe that it is of advantage both to the Republic and to the whole United Kingdom.
The common interests on which North and South can work together to their mutual advantage are not difficult to identify. They include tourism, roads, transport, electricity, the co-ordinated implementation of regional development policy, and many other matters. The White Paper does not exclude any subjects from discussion in a Council of Ireland, or seek to determine in advance who should take part in the Council's work.
It has been suggested that we were wrong in our approach to this, that we should have outlined in greater detail in the White Paper the detailed membership and responsibilities of the Council. I do not think that this would have been either practical in the time available to us or, indeed, wise.
Those who will represent Northern Ireland in the Council, whether they come from the Executive or from the Assembly, or both, have yet to be identified in the elections; and if the Council is to work effectively, its form and functions cannot be imposed but must evolve by consent and by co-operation between


both sides. But I know from my recent talks with Mr. Cosgrave, Mr. Corish and Dr. Fitzgerald that they themselves have given considerable thought to these matters, and I am certain that they will be ready to put forward detailed practical proposals at the conference which Her Majesty's Government intend to arrange.
Then there are some who allege that a Council of Ireland is a halfway stage towards the domination of the North by Dublin. This is another of those wholly unreal fears, often whipped up for ulterior motives, which are so destructive of political progress in Northern Ireland.
When they come to discuss the formation of the Council, the representatives of the United Kingdom Government, of Northern Ireland and of the Republic will all base themselves on the principle —here I quote from the White Paper— of
the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility—which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status".
I am quite certain, from the discussions which I had earlier this month with Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. Corish, that this principle is well understood by the Government of the Republic.
I welcome and share the view expressed by the Prime Minister of the Republic in his speech in the Dail on 14th March, when he said that the policy of his Government was
pacification and reconciliation, but it must be reconciliation based on the recognition of rights and of their effective protection and assured implementation".
With that I agree wholeheartedly. That is the policy underlying the White Paper. It applies to majority and minority alike.
There are two further and interrelated points which I would like to make before leaving the subject of the Council of Ireland.
First, I very much hope it can be agreed that the Council will concern itself with concrete issues and practical action. It must not become a forum for those who want to rake over the embers of past quarrels; and the best way of avoiding this will be for the Council to engage

itself primarily with practical responsibilities, to the benefit of people on both sides of the border.
Secondly, if representatives of the North and the South both prefer that the United Kingdom Government should not participate directly in any joint institutions, we should not object. But a number of important functions of government, including security, will be reserved to the United Kingdom Government.
The United Kingdom Government have responsibility for our obligations as a member of the European Community, as well as for finance provided from United Kingdom sources. If the Council of Ireland wished to exert a practical influence on these policies, arrangements would have to be made for the United Kingdom Government to be associated closely with its work in these respects.
The proposals in the White Paper provide a unique opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to achieve a more peaceful and prosperous future, with better opportunities for employment and a better chance of security for their homes and families.
Over the past week we have seen compelling evidence that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland want the proposals to work. All political leaders in both communities must now prove their leadership by participating in the practical implementation of the proposals. They must stand in the elections, debate responsibly in the Assembly and its committee and, whatever their party allegiance, take a constructive part in the making of laws and the administering of services.
We have heard the threat that our constitutional proposals can be made unworkable. I do not doubt that this is so. The constitution of the United Kingdom, based on conventions built up over the centuries, or the constitution of the United States, with its elaborate structure of checks and balances, could both be made unworkable, given irresponsibility and malice.
At all times the machinery of government is an instrument which ought to be treated with respect by those in power and opposition alike as well as those who elect them to power. But if the leaders


of Northern Ireland have a common desire to advance the interests of their country by working together within a constitution which involves representatives of both the majority and the minority in day-to-day government, our proposals will work, and they will work readily.
The people of Northern Ireland, as well as of the rest of the United Kingdom, will not lightly forgive politicians whose personal ambition leads them to refuse to work the settlement, even before it has been tried. I think the House will agree that the critics from the extremes of both communities have totally failed to suggest alternative solutions which might be successful. All we have heard from them are proposals for the imposed dominance of one particular interest. There could be no more certain prescription for disaster, and for the destruction of everything that is worth while in Northern Ireland.
I would like today to leave one final thought with the House. The truth is —and this is why I so radically disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—that violence has failed in Northern Ireland. Violence continues, and still claims its victims week by week. But violence has failed to achieve its aims. I mean the aims of those who talk of unity but, in fact, use violence to spread division from village to village and street to street. I mean the aims of those who talk of loyalty and law and order but use violence to promote faction and disorder throughout the Province.
Our aim in putting forward these proposals has been to create conditions in which those who wish to prevail in Northern Ireland can do so only by persuading their fellow citizens, by asking for and securing their votes. There is a sense in which for many years Northern Ireland has suffered not from too much politics but from too little. Our aim has been to recreate the normal processes of politics, of peaceful argument and fair resolution of that argument at the polling booths. We take these processes for granted in most of the United Kingdom —perhaps too much for granted. The whole purpose of this White Paper is to restore the polling booth to its place at the centre of the political life of Northern Ireland—and to banish and de-

feat the gun, the rocket and the bomb, the terrorists and the hooligans. That is the justification for the effort which day by day, month by month, we ask our soldiers to undertake, and which—perhaps more difficult still—we ask their families to accept.
The White Paper provides the constitutional framework within which the people of Northern Ireland can seek the path back to peace and prosperity. How precisely they will do so must be for them to decide. But at the same time I believe this House has a duty to give its overwhelming endorsement to the opportunities created by the White Paper.
Any hon. Member who may be tempted to vote against the motion tomorrow night should weigh very carefully the consequences of his or her action in terms of human well-being, and indeed of human lives. Whatever the differences between us on other issues, I see no reason why every Member of this House should not vote tomorrow evening to approve the White Paper, and to support those in Northern Ireland who want the proposals in it to succeed.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Since direct rule, we on this side of the House have been advocating an Assembly with the single transferable vote. We have been advocating power-sharing, the ending of the Special Powers Act and its replacement by emergency legislation accountable to Parliament and based on a Bill of Rights. We have advocated an all-Ireland dimension. On this last point my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition broadened this discussion in November 1971 in his 15-points speech. These principles form the structure of the White Paper. On principle, therefore, we support the White Paper.
We shall, of course, examine critically the legislation that stems from it, the constitutional Bill, the new emergency legislation—the Diplock proposals—the antidiscrimination Bill and the ending of discriminatory laws. We are under no illusion that the White Paper might fail in its objectives—there have been too many false dawns in Northern Ireland—but it must be given a chance and we want it to succeed. It is, however, to Northern Ireland that we look for a response. It is for this reason that we want the Government to provide the means for the


people of Northern Ireland to speak via the ballot box. There has been, of course, as the Prime Minister said, a positive response from the NILP, the Alliance, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and some Unionists.
But the last elections in Northern Ireland were some years ago. There has been direct rule and there have been fundamental changes—profound changes— particularly in the Unionist Party. We want to give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to speak, and to speak soon. We hope that the single transferable vote will allow the voting habits of people to be depolarised, although we notice in the White Paper that the single transferable vote is for only one election. It would be as well for the parties in Northern Ireland to consider the technicalities of the new system and particularly the way in which the election result in the South of Ireland, in the Republic, came about, at least to some degree, by two parties working together.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Liberal Party commands 1 million votes—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is 2 million."]—well, 2 million votes in this country. In the House today will he give a promise to the people of this great country, Great Britain, that he will support proportional representation for the people of this country?

Mr. Rees: No, I would not give that promise, but the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) in his approach shows the House why we need the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland.
As I understand it, the constitutional Bill includes the procedures for the election, but if the White Paper is any criterion, that Bill will be a long one. If that is the case, the elections could not take place in June but in September. In our view, that will be too late. In our view, that would lose the impetus of the White Paper. In our view, early elections would concentrate the minds of the electors. It might also concentrate the minds of aspiring members of the Assembly. So I put to the Prime Minister what I have already put outside the House: will he consider hiving off from the constitutional Bill those parts of it which might be called an electoral Bill, or a Representation of the People Bill and get on with that in such a way that 

elections could be held in June? The major part of the Bill is vital to thinking ahead and it is very likely that Bill No. 2, as it were, would be ready by the time the elections were held. I suggest, for example—because we do not want to go into the marching season—that the election could be held on 28th June.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be better to postpone the district council elections and to have these Assembly elections first? The Prime Minister has emphasised that there should be agreement. There is agreement across the board by all the political parties that the Assembly elections should come first.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member raises a point which has been put to me from all bands of the political spectrum in the last few days. I simply transfer it to the Secretary of State. This is certainly a point which has been made, because this local government election might act not as a dummy run for the electoral procedures but instead as an occasion for the White Paper emotions to come up. That would be a bad thing, so it is said, for the local government elections.

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to deal with the particular point about the local government elections at this stage, but I can tell the hon. Member—I know that my hon. Friends, too, are interested —that consideration has been given to the structure of the Bill. It would be possible, of course, to have a Bill which dealt with these major considerations and then a further Bill which dealt with the detailed proposals. Of course, even then, since an electoral Bill is obviously of the utmost importance, it would be necessary to deal with it fairly expeditiously in the House if elections were to be held as soon as some people are expressing a desire that they should be held—a desire which I fully share. As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, a Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to work out all the necessary implications affecting many people in Northern Ireland. To carry them through, the second Bill, dealing with the details, would also have to be handled fairly quickly in the House.

Mr. Rees: We are all grateful, I think, for the Prime Minister acceding to this


suggestion, which I made within the last 48 hours. We will, of course, co-operate, within the bounds of full consideration of the electoral measure. That does not mean that we shall not do all we can to see that the elections are held in June, because we believe that to be vital. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have obtained an impetus and it would be a bad thing if that were lost in the last few months. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is, of course, on timing that we have had disagreements with the Government over the last year. It is on timing that we feel very strongly.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would the hon. Gentleman assist the House in getting it perfectly clear what is the nature of the agreement which seems just to have been reached? Is it that, instead of one Bill there should be two Bills? If that is so, how is it intended that the House should proceed when the Question originally put by Mr. Speaker is put again at the end of tomorrow's proceedings?

Mr. Rees: I have no doubt that there is great import in what the right hon. Gentleman says about constitutional Bills, but it is for the Government to consider the implications of that. The suggestion from this side was on the one point that it is important to have elections. That is not an evil or even an illogical suggestion, considering the constitutional history of this country. One could look back to the Reform Bills of the last century, like those of 1884, for example, when the then Liberal Government separated the constitutional changes from some of the electoral considerations. There is a respectable history for this, if my quick glance at the history is correct.
There is a great deal of flexibility in parts of the White Paper, but should not more information be provided, perhaps in a discussion-type Green Paper— I do not stick to that particular form— on a number of matters? We in this House and the political leaders in Northern Ireland should be mulling them over.
As for the Assembly, which is referred to in paragraphs 37, 42 and 43, there is

one point in paragraph 43 which I should like to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice:
The Government believes it to be right that the Assembly itself should work out its own detailed methods and procedures.…
It is likely that, if the elections take place in June and if the major part of the constitutional proposals are in the second Bill, there will be an Assembly very quickly, and it would need to start working.
Unless there is pre-discussion, or rather pre-information, about the possible form of the Assembly, it will be very difficult for it to get moving very quickly. I am not asking for finality from the Government—they are quite right to put it in this form in the White Paper—but I should like to know what the alternative possibilities are.
The White Paper says, I think, that the procedure need not be of a parliamentary type, but is there not experience in other parts of the world? Are there not State assemblies in, say, Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth which we could examine and which people in Northern Ireland should consider, so that they would not start with a tabula rasa on the first day they meet? Similarly with committees—

Mr. Frank McManus: May I put a hypothetical question to the hon. Gentleman, since he is in a hypothetical mood at the moment? Supposing the majority of members elected to the new Assembly decided that they wish to see another status, say an independent status, for Northern Ireland. What would his position be then?

Mr. Rees: If the vast majority—this is the key to the whole problem—want to cause disruption or have a different view of the Assembly, then the White Paper will to a large degree have failed, and people will have to start again. But I will come back to that point, for the hon. Member's particular benefit, in a moment. What matters to us in this House is that parties in Northern Ireland should stand up and be counted and say whom they represent. It is only then that we shall know whether the White Paper has a chance of success.
With regard to the committees, how should the heads of departments be


chosen? What are the possibilities for choosing a head of department? On this, too, we are asking not for finality but for ideas. What are the possibilities with regard to the Executive? At the moment, I find myself dependent on the evidence given to the Darlington Conference, which appears in the Green Paper. There are all sorts of interesting speculations on which, with the aid, perhaps, of more statistical knowledge than I possess, one can work out the possibilities of what might happen in the Executive, depending upon the results of the election.
All I would say is that there would be no merit in the statutory Catholic or the statutory Protestant on the Executive. It would be better if we had an Executive which met the right hon. Gentleman's criteria arising out of a coalition. But the figures, which can only be guesses on my part, do not lead one to believe that this will come about very easily. Again, I accept, one has to wait for the election result.
We in this place and the parties in Ireland need ideas in all these flexible aspects to promote discussion. It would be wrong to leave them until the day after the election. We do not know the results, and in the heady days after an election there may not be the time for people to put their minds to these important practical problems.
Another question to which I think we ought to give our minds is the rôle of the Secretary of State. May I assume from paragraph 50(a), which deals with the Secretary of State's functions, that we shall need more legislation in this House after he has had consultations with the elected representatives?
With regard to paragraph 50(b) it is important that we should give our minds to this point in the next couple of days. From this White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman will be drawing up a Bill. It is often difficult to amend a Bill, and if we have considered it before hand we may save ourselves some trouble. This sub-paragraph refers to Northern Ireland departments acting as the right hon. Gentleman's agents, which raises in my mind the question of accountability to this House. What procedural arrangements will there be here for dealing with the Secretary of State's legislation? We would all agree, on both sides, that the 

arrangements since direct rule have been unsatisfactory. This was inevitable perhaps given the nature of direct rule, but what procedural arrangements have the Government in mind for the legislation which the Secretary of State in his own right will be bringing before the House?
I wonder whether this is only a matter for the Secretary of State but also for the appropriate committee of this House. It may be, for there will be a number of orders emanating from the Secretary of State's Department. I have found—I have no doubt that constitutional experts may find more—that there are about five methods of Orders in Council coming before this House and stemming from Northern Ireland. Two of them come under the Northern Ireland Temporary Provisions Act through regulations. There can be a regulation under the authority of an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament. In exceptional conditions, I understand, there could be regulations made under the Civil Authorities Special Powers Act, and they could come before this House. Before we find ourselves later this year dealing with orders, we must face the fact that I and some of my hon. Friends find ourselves daily being handed Orders in Council fitting into all these categories. It is very difficult to conceive that they will be discussed on the Floor of the House, because of lack of parliamentary time, and we must put our minds to the procedures in this House.
Over all, the Secretary of State—and I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman in particular, but to any Secretary of State under this White Paper— is an extremely powerful being. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) wrote an interesting article in The Times recently, and in it he said that under this White Paper the Secretary of State is a cross between a governor and a commander in chief in colonial terms. The Bill must spell out clearly what it is that the Secretary of State will do.
I can only hope—I say this in no carping spirit—that the job of Secretary of State has not been built around the energy and the personality of the existing Secretary of State. He bears a very hard burden, flying backwards and forwards —but I need not develop that. However, I put this to him, that Ministers change,


as, of course, Governments change, and I only hope that this job has not been conceived on too narrow a basis.
With regard to the devolution of powers, when one looks at the reserved and transferred powers in the White Paper one sees that there is additional proof that this White Paper is tailor made for Northern Ireland. When I have heard, since this White Paper came out, people imagining that the White Paper has any relevance to the rest of the United Kingdom I have thought that those people could not have read it, because it is tailor made for Northern Ireland in the context of Northern Ireland.
We note the order to remove the peculiar Northern Ireland oath declaration, which meant that people in Northern Ireland had to take an oath of allegiance to the Government. I raise the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised: does the Flags and Emblems Act, for example, come under this? I do not believe it comes under the Special Powers Act. I believe it was an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
It is early days yet, but if the White Paper is successful there is a case for giving the Assembly more power. I notice that hon. Members looked a little askance when the Prime Minister said that the new Assembly would have more powers in some respects than Stormont. In many respects Stormont was a facade, particularly on financial matters, and the people in Northern Ireland should not run away with illusions of grandeur that the presence of a mace, and so on, made the Assembly really very powerful. In basic respects this White Paper gives more powers to Northern Ireland.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I take it that if the hon. Member is saying that Stormont was a facade and that financial and fiscal control is here, he is conceding the case for more Northern Ireland Members in this House.

Mr. Rees: That is curious logic, but I will come to it in a moment.
I was saying that there is a case for giving the Assembly more powers, and it is for this reason—the existence of the Assembly, the fact that its powers can be increased, and, as the Prime Minister

said, the all-Ireland dimension—that we agree with the Government that the 12 Members of Parliament is right.
I bring to the notice of the House the words of Mr. Utley in the Daily Telegraph today. He has knowledge particularly of the Unionist side in Northern Ireland. He says:
The rank and file of Ulster Unionists care little for the fact that they are to get no more representatives at Westminster.
To be fair to Mr. Utley he goes on to the question of the Governor as being more meaningful than the question of membership.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Member not agree that that is just Mr. Utley's opinion? He had better wait till the elections to see what the people in Northern Ireland think.

Mr. Rees: I think I can say the same thing to the hon. Gentleman.
We need to know more about the functions of the Secretary of State. With regard to the all-Ireland dimension, the Irish dimension, my right hon. Friend, as I have said, raised this point about 18 months ago. It is a major part of the Green Paper. It is deliberately vague, and I can see the merit of that in the context of a new Irish Government and the fact that there are no elections yet in Northern Ireland. He mentioned three objectives as the basis of discussion. I want only to make one point. I could wish there were more ideas around in this country, from the North of Ireland and, indeed, from the South of Ireland. I am not saying that the Government in the South of Ireland should have spoken yet on how the All-Ireland Council could be organised, but it is remarkable how over 50 years so little has been said about this. It stems from the fact that we in this House—it was before my time —shut our eyes to the problems, quite wrongly. When one searches for ideas on this one finds they are remarkably deficient. I would like to see more ideas coming out of the South of Ireland. I would like to see the political parties in the South of Ireland being more positive in this respect, because they bear as much blame as anybody else for shutting their eyes, except for a very long-term aim, to the problems of the North and the South.
What is certain is that the All-Ireland Council will have to concentrate on


economic development. The right hon. Gentleman made that point. There is no doubt in my mind from my conversations with trade unions in Northern Ireland whom, once more, I praise, because they deserve it, that the economic dimension of the Irish dimension could prove to be the base on which the all-Irish dimension could develop.
There is one other point I personally would like to see discussed. It stems from the former hat I wore in the last Government. I would like to see them discuss citizenship, because there is no such thing as citizenship but nationality. It is confused with regard to the Commonwealth. To say it is confused between Ireland and ourselves is putting it mildly. To say it is confused between the North and South of Ireland is equally true. I say to the Prime Minister that it might well be that we could withdraw, because it would need the Protestant Irish and the Roman Catholic Irish to understand what it is all about, but to discuss it would be valuable.
We need to restore law and order first. Of course political matters and economic matters all count together, but the need to restore law and order in Northern Ireland is the most important need. We could well have a political breakthrough but still lawlessness which frightens decent people in all communities could go on.
A successful political breakthrough would help, but this is why, in our view, means must be found—I put this in a vague way because I do not wish to be too precise—of allowing all people in Northern Ireland to stand in the elections. I should like to see the Government finding a means whereby Sinn Fein and the Republicans could stand in the election. The analogy is in the South. While in the South both wings of the IRA are illegal, Sinn Fein is not illegal. The official Sinn Fein is a registered political party. In the last election the official Sinn Fein had, I believe, 1·14 per cent. of the total vote. Whatever delusions of grandeur anyone has about a political base, 1·14 per cent. is a fairly elementary statistical figure to understand. It is important that we see the strength of everyone who claims to be a leader in Northern Ireland.
From the White Paper I understand that the Special Powers Act is to go. This

will affect the situation with regard to proscribed organisations. I realise the problems raised in the White Paper about people who at one minute are killing and the next minute are saying that they are democrats. The two cannot be brought together and I understand that. But I am sure that a way can be found whereby people can stand for election. It may well be that the support of the IRA will be as meaningful in the North as it is in the South.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Sinn Fein and Republican candidates contest the Westminster election?

Mr. Rees: I was aware of that. If that were a way out—I doubt it—perhaps that would be the approach. But it is up to the Secretary of State, with his detailed knowledge, to see whether that is possible.
With regard to law and order, I turn to the question of policing. The White Paper is right when it asserts on page 6 the relationship between the community and the police. The Royal Ulster Constabulary does not police certain areas. That is a fact which everyone who knows Northern Ireland knows to be true. The RUC has had the most difficult job. Its men are in constant danger. I have met not only its leadership but also, from time to time, policemen—for example, in the police federation, where one meets a cross-section. The men I have met are fine men who have talked to me about the need for the police to be on a British basis. All that I can say about that today is that it might be something to help the situation—the subject ought at least to be discussed— if the police authority could devolve management to local authorities in some way. At least we should consider auxiliary police, as in wartime here, as perhaps something we could use in some way in Northern Ireland.
Incidentally, we shall be responsible, in this place, for the police, as for all security after the Bills become law, if they become law in the way that it is suggested in the White Paper. We should certainly have to find means of discussing important matters of this nature.
On Diplock—as a shorthand for the wider aspect that the White Paper raises,


the legislation to deal with violence and subversion—we welcome the end of the Special Powers Act and the fact that emergency provisions will be subject to the control of this House. But I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what we have said many times. It is important to see Diplock in the context of the charter of human rights. We cannot discuss Diplock properly unless we know firmly what is the basis of residence in Northern Ireland.
I have been actively involved in Irish affairs for about the last 18 months. Prior to that I was in the Home Office, but only on the periphery of matters for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) shouldered firm and direct responsibility and showed, as we all know, much understanding. But I observe that we have come a long way since those days. Things have changed, particularly in the last year. One change is that, while they might have felt it before, all the political parties in the South, like the Social Democratic and Labour Party in the North— I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in the Chamber today—talk no longer of unification as a practical aim of politics now. They are talking about conciliation, about making the Province of Northern Ireland work. The hope, the cry, is for a new society to grow in the North. We recognise the aspirations of both communities. It is difficult. It is not easy and may well prove to be a pipedream. But it is something on which we have to work.
The Protestants of the North cannot be forced into the South. Pledges or not, forced unification is not "on", because it is not possible. I have always felt that the practicalities of that are more important than words on a piece of paper.
I repeat what was said at the Labour Party conference last year and what has been said by so many of the political leaders in Northern Ireland and in Ireland as a whole. Consent is the only way to change the status of the North. The IRA does not realise the harm that its bombings and killings have done, morally as well as politically, now and to future generations. I judge that by talking to people and from my post-bag. Anyone

who believes that bombing and killing achieve political ends per se all by themselves in a nice, clean objective way must talk to those whose people have been killed. The hatred is there and will last for generations. It will go down to their children.
The IRA can disrupt the community. It can kill. It cannot win the battle. The same is true, in a different context, of the Ulster Volunteer Force. To them both I say this: a man with a gun looks Dig, but at the ballot box he reverts to his true size. That is why people shy away from the ballot box—because it is pleasant to be big and to believe that one is very important. I often note that the man with a gun seems to get far more attention in many parts of the media than those who are trying to do the sort of thing that most of us in the House want.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On the point about the ballot box, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the SDLP and other parties boycotted the border poll which was so important?

Mr. Rees: I do not think that boycotting the border poll puts them in the category of any of the groups I have mentioned in the last few moments.
To all those who are not prepared to use the White Paper as a basis for political action, I put the simple question: what next? The civil war in the 1920s, which still dominates political thinking even among people who do not believe in violence in Ireland, brought the illogical border. If the White Paper were to fail there could and would be another illogical ad hoc situation. It would likely follow bloodshed. To those in the United Kingdom who talk of a pull-out, just like that, I say that it would be a prescription for people to murder each other. I hear analogies with other parts of the world where murder and killing has continued a long distance away. If it were to go on in Ireland, it would not be too far away.
There is no simple solution. Any change of policy depends on elections. A political solution can lead to the withdrawal of troops. This must be our aim. There must be disengagement. But to imagine that a quick disengagement would in any way solve the situation is wrong.
The White Paper gives the chance of a new direction, but it requires leadership. It is easy to be pompous in this place, from a distance. If there is one thing that Irish Catholics and Protestants do not like it is English pomposity. But it requires leadership in Northern Ireland, too. Only the people of Northern Ireland can tell us where the approach of the last year has failed. For ultimately we do not determine the future of Ireland. The future of the North of Ireland will be determined by the people of Northern Ireland themselves.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Apart from congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with all my heart on having got us thus far, I want to make only two points without taking up too much time.
The first relates to what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said at the beginning of his speech. I remain convinced that it is worth a tremendous effort to get the General Election in Northern Ireland staged and the Assembly in being before the summer holidays. The alternative to that is an interval of six months, and in Northern Ireland that is a long time, particularly because that six months will include the marching season, which begins roughly in the middle of July and continues towards the middle of September.
I accept that it may well be May before the Bill is before us, and it could be June before it leaves us. I accept that the parties will need time to recruit their candidates, to prepare their campaigns, and to get back in harness. Most difficult of all the machinery for running an election, if the machinery required for a border poll is any guide, will be complex, detailed and time-consuming. These are enormous difficulties, but, along with other hon. Members, I take the view that if difficulties are not insuperable we must do our best to overcome them. We should consider, for example, whether some of the preliminaries could not be run in parallel with the Bill's progress through the House. Would it be necessary to indemnify against expense if it could be done, as it might be, with agreement? I have no doubt, listening to the exchanges in the hon. Member's

speech, that the Opposition would be not unco-operative in bringing the General Election forward.
When the Bill comes it must have adequate time in this place so that it may be fully considered. But none, least of all those who are closest to representation in Northern Ireland, would wish their opposition to particular passages of the Bill to stand in the way of giving the people of Northern Ireland a chance to vote at the earliest opportunity. Until that happens a great deal of dangerous confusion will reign, and it might well increase. One consequence of suspending the parliamentary proceedings has been that a considerable number of people claim to speak in the name of the people of Northern Ireland. They are, of course, in a very strong position to do so because there is no ballot box to test their credentials. Some of them, and maybe some of us, will be surprised when that test has been taken. Meanwhile the unrepresentative can claim parity of esteem and often a great deal more publicity than those who may be representative.
There will be no stability until the election is out of the way. A careful reading of the White Paper persuades me that only after the election can the main design—devolution, power-sharing, the question of relations with the Republic— begin to take shape. Only after it has taken shape should we be able to see how far devolution can go, and what the r61e of the Secretary of State will be eventually. As I read the White Paper, this is indeterminate at the moment.
It is because of this element of uncertainty that I do not join some of my hon. and right hon. Friends in the demand for more Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. The complaint is made by some that Northern Ireland will have a lesser status, though this is arguable, than it had under Stormont. It is even argued that it would have a county council status. I believe it will have a great deal more. Stronger complaint would lie if we determined now that more Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland should sit at Westminster, because that could surely imply a limit to the extent of devolution. It could suggest that for all time the limits on the power of the new Assembly would be confined to the minimum that the White Paper


has to offer—in other words, a permanently reduced status for the Assembly of Northern Ireland.

Captain Orr: Surely that would mean that present representation from Scotland precludes any kind of devolution for Scotland in the future.

Mr. Deedes: Not at all. I decline to accept that we are comparing like with like in comparing Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. For a number of reasons—such as the land frontier, the sea, and history—it would not be a comparison of like with like, and I do not intend to embark on that argument.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that Northern Ireland is, to a large extent, a part of Scotland grafted on to Ireland?

Mr. Deedes: I am not taking up that challenge either. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have been the first to complain if the shape of things to come put a final limit on the powers of the Assembly and the likelihood of more power devolving on to it.
For all its appeal to reasonable men, the White Paper offers no guarantee that violence would cease or decrease. Paragraph 58 refers to:
provisions for the more effective combatting of terror and violence.
We shall await with great interest what the Bill has to say about that. Whether violence continues, abates or gets worse will not necessarily depend on what the IRA leadership has to say. There seems to me something faintly ludicrous and distasteful about those "salons", held by mandarins of the IRA at which selected representatives of the media are summoned to hang upon their lightest word. "Is it peace?" they ask eagerly, and the answer is solemly noted and displayed with great prominence.
Does anyone suppose that such men will lightly abandon the positions to which we elevate them so flatteringly with this delusory power in return for the indignity of losing their deposit at the General Election? I wish to challenge the point made earlier on the need to change the law in order to make it possible for Sinn Fein representatives to stand. It is in theory ideal. But does

anyone believe that some of these men would willingly exchange the power they now have for the indignity of appearing bottom of the poll? It is arguable but I doubt it. Power of this kind is very addictive.

Mr. McNamara: Does the right hon. Gentleman not sec the converse of this argument, that if the opportunity is given and if these people are shown to have only minor support within the community, their right to speak, to have attention paid to them and to try to threaten with the gun is thereby considerably diminished?

Mr. Deedes: I am prepared to go part of the way with that suggestion, but the real point that concerns me is what the hon. Member for Leeds, South said about the man with the gun looking big and the ballot box cutting him down to size. What the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said may be true but it is not an argument for suggesting that violence could be decreased in that way. The man with the gun is well aware of just that point.
It is my belief that violence and what it can achieve has proved very addictive in the minds of some of these people; the power to carry guns, of having access to explosives, of plotting and planning outrages, and of having the power to intimidate, which is far stronger than the power to persuade, is all very attractive and will not be yielded as soon as some would hope. This is particularly so for youths of 16, 17 and 18. We should reflect when we are weighing the prospects for the security forces now how heady and how compulsive is the power to influence events by such methods. It will not, in my view, be readily forsaken.

Mr. McManus: The right hon. Member has referred to youths of 16, 17 and 18 and other ages. How many of these youths has he interviewed to obtain their views, and on what does he base his judgment, other than on dubious sources of information?

Mr. Deedes: These statements give me no pleasure, but as a result of a great many visits to Northern Ireland, visits to the security forces, seeing a great deal of what goes on and hearing the evidence


of eye-witnesses I have not the slightest doubt that one of the most tragic problems is that youths of 15, 16 and 17 have been dragged into this violence and have been turned into potential assassins. The hon. Gentleman must not think that I am using it against them. I am using it against the generation which has brought them to that path.
What has been let loose on the streets of Belfast cannot be stopped now simply at the whims of the IRA, even if the orders are given by the IRA. It will prove very hard to stop. All this is fully set out in Chapter 9 of the Diplock Report, to which the House gave insufficient attention. The first paragraph of that report reads:
One of the most troubling features of the present situation is the use made of the young by terrorist organisations to aid them in carrying on their activities and to hamper the work of the security forces.
Diplock then unfolded the difficulties, one of which was the lack of any secure establishment for these young boys, which he described as
little short of disastrous in present circumstances".
That was last year. I am not clear how far we have faced this problem since Diplock made that observation. He also said last year:
We are frankly appalled at the apparent lack of any sense of urgency.
Is it not time that we took this more seriously?
I sometimes hear it said, with singularly misplaced optimism, that the IRA forces are down to young men of 15, 16 and 17. True or not, the statement fills me with misgivings. This is part of a generation that has been corrupted. They are not subject, as are their leaders, to the effect that certain actions may have upon their image. They act even more irresponsibly than certain Provisional leaders of the IRA. Until we realise this and act upon it, I fear that they could still bedevil and imperil what we all hope will be a better and more hopeful course.
A condition of free elections is not simply an absence of violence. It is an absence of fear, an absence of the intimidation that violence engenders, and we shall find it very difficult to eliminate among those who have grown up to regard it as a way of life.
A critical deficiency in Northern Ireland in the next stage will be of confidence. The people of Northern Ireland have kept their courage but have lost their confidence, and that is hardly surprising. It is at the root of many of the hesitant reactions to the White Paper.
The Prime Minister expressed the belief that most people in Northern Ireland want these proposals to work, and I entirely agree. Nine-tenths of the opposition to the proposals is not political opposition but fear—fear of what may be the consequences if certain things occur—and that is very difficult to eradicate. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also said that violence has failed. I wish with all my heart that I could accept that. The fact is that violence and the consequence of violence have taken away from the people of Northern Ireland something which we perhaps too readily take for granted. The effect of violence and the intimidation that it engenders on the border poll, which some of us witnessed, and on the elections yet to come, is something which we in this country must not underrate. As we move from what has been the mainly security past to what we hope will be the political future, we should bear in mind that there can be no real confidence until violence and the hidden consequences of violence can be shown clearly to the people of Northern Ireland to have failed.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I believe that the White Paper should receive the support of the House. I equally believe and fervently hope that it will be given a fair chance of working in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the courage and fairness which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has shown since his appointment. The White Paper is a manifestation of those qualities. If it is not out of place, may I also say that I think the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that the restraint and wisdom shown by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), which was typified by his speech, are a contributory factor to bringing us to the present situation.
I entirely agree with the analysis made by the right hon. Member for Ashford


(Mr. Deedes) of the effects of violence on young people. That is a continuing social problem. Those young people will continue to learn history from different books, different schools and different philosophies. This will produce a social problem that no White Paper can solve, and it will take a long time for us to ameliorate that situation.
It would be impossible for any member of the Liberal Party to oppose the White Paper. I remember that in Blackpool, in 1967, two years before the dispatch by the Leader of the Opposition of troops to Northern Ireland—in my view rightly—there was a resolution passed which called for proportional representation for all Northern Ireland elections, the repeal of the Special Powers Act, human rights legislation to prevent discrimination, co-operation with the Republic on matters of mutual concern and the transfer of the border problem from Stormont to a plebiscite.
I remember my Liberal colleague Sheelagh Murnaghan on four occasions introducing into Stormont a Human Rights Bill and receiving not a single vote for it from the majority party, although she managed to drive one Unionist Member of the Stormont Parliament into abstention.
I do not want to dwell on the past. Those who do are those who want to live in the past and are not prepared to accept change in the future. That that attitude has been endemic should not cause surprise when we find opposition to the White Paper. I think it is generally known now even by the most introspective Englishman—I am not an Englishman; I am a Celt—that there is more bloody-mindedness in Northern Ireland than there is in the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom put together. We understand that that is one of the problems with which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has been contending, and we wish him well.
I want to make one or two brief comments on additions and amendments which I should like to see in the White Paper. Whilst I entirely agree with the Prime Minister that violence has not achieved anything in the sense that it has not brought about reunification or a

basic change in the relationship between North and South, I very much regret that it has achieved political change which for the last 50 years no form of democratic argument and discussion achieved. The great tragedy in the history of Ireland is that we have almost always conceded to violence that we could at an earlier stage have conceded to logic.
There are certain improvements that could be made in the White Paper, and I shall refer briefly to the Assembly, the police and this House of Commons. I agree with the power-sharing concept in the White Paper but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will experience difficulties in forming an administration. I would prefer the Executive to be elected by the Assembly by proportional representation, as happens in Switzerland to good effect. We want to see that the political and religious majority and minorities are represented, we want to see that Protestants and Catholics are represented, and we also want to see that different political parties and different shades of opinion are represented. That is far more likely to happen under a PR election which has the additional advantage of having behind it the authority of the Assembly. We should make it plain that the democratic opportunities for the electorate are now being enlarged and not restricted.
I wonder whether there is a case for saying that the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament at Westminster should also be ex officio members of the Assembly. I do not believe they should be paid or able to sit on the Executive, but their presence initially might be a useful form of cross-fertilisation between the Assembly and the House. That suggestion may horrify some Members of the House, although I must point out that two of the three parties in this House have had the experience of sitting in two Parliaments, one in Westminster and one in Strasbourg. Indeed the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) sits in two Parliaments, as I believe does the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
The electorate must be clear about how the proportional representational system works. There may well be a case for having a specimen ballot form before 20th


May. I am sure that we shall be told that the system is alien and undemocratic, but we must remember that we are restoring the electoral system which Lloyd George introduced at the time of the partition. He believed—in my view rightly—that this was the only way in which we could afford a choice within political parties and also guarantee that minorities were adequately represented. It was Lord Craigavon, the first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who said when abolishing PR that had the system not been changed the Opposition would have been returned.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman not also recall that at that time Mr. Cosgrave regretted that he could not abolish proportional representation in the Irish Free State?

Mr. Thorpe: Yes, but the system has persisted in the Republic, and it has produced great stability. It produced, for example, only three political parties out of 144 seats. Under the English system there were six political parties in Stor-mont at the last election. One effect of proportional representation in the Republic is that a man's religious beliefs have never been decisive in determining to which political party he belongs. That is why there has never been a Cabinet in the Republic which has not contained Protestants. Although Protestants only represent 5 to 10 per cent. of the population, none the less they have been represented—whereas in 50 years of polarisation under our own system there has not been a single Cabinet Minister who is a Catholic, save for one non-elected Member, and they represent 35 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population.

Mr. Michael English: The right hon. Gentleman's facts are correct, but does he not realise that there is one great difference between Ireland under the STV and the proposal that is now before us? Ireland under STV has three- or sometimes four-member constituencies, whereas the proposal before us is that there should be seven-member constituencies and in a few cases six-member ones?

Mr. Thorpe: The principle is the same, and the details are not very important in terms of whether they are multi-member constituencies or otherwise.

Incidentally, the figure is not three in Southern Ireland, though I do not want to get drawn into details. I declare an interest since I am Vice-Chairman of the Electoral Reform Society and I have made a study of this subject. I believe it is vital that people understand how the system works, and the Government are right to introduce it.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which, with one or two exceptions, has behaved extremely well under appalling conditions. I should like to make one suggestion at this point, although perhaps the moment for it is not yet right since tempers have not yet cooled. I should like to see a joint recruiting campaign for the RUC and the Garda in border areas. There has been considerable cooperation over the years between the police in the Republic and police in the North. I see one hon. Gentleman opposite laughing, and no doubt we shall soon be hearing about the "red hand" of Maynooth and all the other cliches from the last century. However, I appreciate that my suggestion is not possible at present. But I believe that if the police could go into the Bogside without being thought to belong exclusively to one community, and if it could be thought that the police had mutual interest and an interdependence in maintaining peace on both sides, this would be an enormous advance. This is something we must look at. And incidentally if we could successfully achieve four-Power policing of Vienna after the war, I see no reason why the same formula should not work in Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: Mr. Kilfedder rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I am sorry; I cannot give way.
Let me try to deal with the position of Members of Parliament at Westminster. I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposal that their numbers should be increased, and I hope that the Prime Minister is right that, following the Kilbrandon Report, the question of devolution in the United Kingdom may well proceed further. If this happens we may wish to look at the situation again. But I should like to see the Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland returned to this House by proportional representation. I believe in


proportional representation, and I should like to see it applied in this House universally, but I recognise that the conservatives on both sides of the House make that impossible at this moment. But I genuinely believe that people like the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and Terence O'Neill would have a much greater chance of seeing moderation succeed than by perpetuating in Westminster a system which we have condemned in Northern Ireland, because the very system of polarisation makes extremists.
The Government will always say that the system will apply only to Northern Ireland but to nowhere else; they will say that we must never think that it will invade one inch of territory in the United Kingdom. Even though I accept that the case is overwhelming that elections in Northern Ireland should take place under PR, I also believe that it would be another way of giving a chance to moderates to come to this House.
We all regard the Ulster Members as colourful. I do not believe there is any one of them whom we regard as a flaming moderate—with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and he retired from the field under extreme pressure from his constituency. I want to see people of moderation who can stand for multi-member constituencies.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, South that everybody must condemn violence. Of course people realise the odium of the IRA, but there are thugs in every community. It takes oppression and frustration to bring those thugs to the fore. I do not in any way defend them, but I am merely saying that it would be difficult for that situation to have prospered in any other part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we want to see the maximum number of people fighting the General Election, and I believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the ingenuity to see that those who want to stand may qualify. This may have to be done by a declaration that they reject violence, but I do not believe that they should be asked to take an oath which will offend their conscience when they happen to disagree with the constitution. There are some people who have been elected to this House who are not in favour of

violence but basically do not like our present constitution. Therefore, I do not foresee any great difficulty.
Another rich sphere of co-operation will be in the European Parliament. I hope that the time will come when Labour Members of Parliament from the Republic and United Kingdom Labour Members will be able to co-operate in Strasbourg.
There must be a basic change of attitudes. It is all very well for Mr. Faulkner to say that he welcomes the support of Catholics. But it is very odd that in all the 50 years which have elapsed there has never been a Roman Catholic candidate for the Unionist Party. It is not for any lack of recruits. We well remember the case of Mr. Boyle in 1969 who was President of the Unionist Club at Queen's University, Belfast. He was prepared to fight South Down as a Unionist, but the Unionists rejected him because they did not want to select a Roman Catholic and preferred that the Nationalists should get in unopposed. It is attitudes of that sort that must be changed.
We must give the White Paper a chance. I am certain that if we see a continuation of some of the intransigence from the hard-line Protestants, or from the men of violence on either side, they will find that there is intolerance in this country and that this country will not stand such intransigence very much longer. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I gather, is temporarily leading the movement against the White Paper. Of course, we know that in Northern Ireland leadership is of fluctuating value. I think particularly of Hymn No. 689. I do not believe that hymns are necessarily the finest display of the poetry of our nation but they sometimes have something to offer. Hymn No. 689, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has sung on regular occasions, includes the following words:
Once to every man and nation
comes the moment to decide,
in the strife of truth with
falsehood for the good or evil side.
The White Paper, for the first time, gives a real chance to the moderates. I have faith in the future of Northern Ireland because I believe that there are moderates whom we can call upon. If that is so we may have the prospect


in our lifetime of ending what has been one of the most tragic and at times one of the most shameful chapters in our history. I hope that the White Paper will succeed. Those who oppose it will have a very heavy burden on their conscience, as will those who engineer its failure. I believe that it can succeed.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The flavour of the speech of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) cannot fail to have added to the feeling which has been forcefully brought home to us today. This is probably the most important debate on Northern Ireland which has taken place in this Chamber in the last half century. We must approach it in that realisation.
Before I comment on the White Paper, I remind the House of the horror of the people of the United Kingdom on learning of the horrible assassination of three young soldiers which took place in my constituency on Friday night. Enough has been said about that already, but I wish to say that perhaps, 98 or 99 per cent. of the people of my constituency extend their sympathy to the families of the men involved. They extend their good wishes for the recovery of the other soldier who was seriously injured.
I also add my tribute to the work of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is only right that I, as a Member for a Northern Ireland constituency, should put this on record. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has not always seen eye to eye with me and many of my colleagues on many issues. Nevertheless, the work which he has performed, his sincerity and the strains which he has undergone have been such that we should put our thanks on record. I refer particularly to the wide areas of consultation in which he has engaged over so many difficult months.
It is my belief that the White Paper, while it does not attain the first choice of many sections of the community, is a reasonable basis of compromise. It contains sufficient to satisfy a wide area of the people of Northern Ireland. It is my impression that a wide cross-section of the people of Northern Ireland wish to give the plan a chance. They will deal harshly with politicians who, for their own short-

term interests, attempt to sabotage the White Paper.
There are two areas where I hold a different opinion from the position set out in the White Paper. First, it is unfortunate that there has not been recognition that Northern Ireland is under-represented in this House, particularly having regard to the downgrading in the functions of the new Stormont. In fact it is not a parliament—nobody can pretend that it is— but an assembly. On 13th February, in a written answer, I was told that the average Northern Ireland constituency had approximately 86,000 electors. The average figures for Welsh and Scottish constituencies are 55,000 and 51,000 respectively. The average figure for a United Kingdom constituency is 63,000.
The House must recognise that there is a substantial difference between the size of the average Northern Ireland constituency and constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has always been under-represented in this House. I know that in the past Stormont has had theoretical powers in financial matters, but in practice financial matters were dealt with essentially by this House which raised the taxes. Consequently Stormont was a very limited Parliament. I appreciate that we could discuss this matter backwards and forwards and would in the end get nowhere. Therefore, I appeal to the Government and Opposition Front Benches to consider whether that matter could not be considered by an impartial body away from the hurly-burly of politics. Perhaps the matter could be put before a Speaker's Conference or a group of senior Privy Councillors or a judicial body. There should not be a political decision but a decision taken in a judicial atmosphere on the merits.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: It would be helpful for the House also to know that there have been times during the last 40 years when some English constituencies have been well in excess of the quota. An answer to a Question only a year ago showed that there were 48 English constituencies with electorates of more than 80,000 and 16 with electorates of more than 100,000.

Mr. Mills: That is an interesting point. However, the burden of my argument


is based on the average figure for Northern Ireland. Compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is substantially under-represented. Nothing is solved by sweeping that situation under the mat. I am suggesting that there should be some form of judicial or impartial examination. That would help enormously to remove the heat from the matter.
I also take a different position from that expressed in the White Paper on power sharing. Long before the White Paper was published, I said in speeches and on other occasions that I recognised that we must have a form of meaningful power sharing as of right in a new assembly. I maintain that view. I agree with what was said from the Opposition Front Bench—namely, that power sharing has been left rather too vague in the White Paper. I hope that it can be more carefully spelt out at a later stage. The Observer, in its editorial last week, put the position very well. It said:
As things stand, it is open to the Protestant leaders to play down their present differences over how, or whether, to share power with the Catholics and, once returned on the old ' tribal' ticket, to proceed to sabotage the new system.
It may be within the recollection of hon. Members that that is what has been attempted in certain quarters over the last seven days. That is because the area of power sharing has been left far too open. The Craig axis has combined with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) together with, although I am not quite sure, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). They have said that they will proceed to stand for election. That I welcome. However, they have said that they will proceed to election and then will make the system unworkable. That is a deplorable attitude.
We must next consider Mr. Faulkner's position. He has produced four definitions of power sharing. By doing so he has succeeded in fudging the issue. He has attempted to say that power sharing is really the old committee system in the old Stormont. He has also said that power sharing could be based on a broader Unionist Party alone. He has several other definitions. I left the

Unionist Party after trying to get the party to accept that, whether it liked it or not, the consequence of March 1972 and direct rule was that the old mould was broken and that one had to play a constructive rôle in creating a new mould.
But because of this fudging of the issue of power sharing, some people have been able to postpone reality once again. I entirely understand those who say "In no circumstances am I prepared to have anything to do with power sharing", although I do not accept that view. I equally understand those who say "We must make power sharing work". But I cannot accept the view of those who are attempting to fudge the issue, because that is the most blatantly absurd situation of all.

Mr. Thorpe: I owe the hon. Gentleman an apology. I should have included him on the side of the angels. I assure him that, like the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), he has the respect of the House for the moderate way in which he has put forward his case.

Mr. Mills: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
In this situation one watches a vast amount of television of a somewhat repetitious nature. I hope the House will forgive the fact that I myself must go very shortly to a television studio. I have seen a lot of television in the last couple of days in which, I fear, many politicians have been building up the fears and anxieties of the ordinary men in the street.
On the one hand there are those who say that the White Paper is a sell-out to a united Ireland, which I do not believe is true. On the other hand there are those who say that the people of Northern Ireland will become second-class citizens. I do not accept that either. But it is all expressed in emotive language, and such an atmosphere can pollute the way in which the White Paper is received.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) suggested the desirability of having the Assembly elections at the end of June. There is much merit in keeping up the momentum and having them at the earliest possible date. But certain other considerations have to be borne in mind. The local government elections are due to be held on 30th May. Would it be the


intention still to hold them? Again, July is the traditional marching season in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, under the hon. Gentleman's suggestion there would be three months of continuous activity—a local government election campaign, an Assembly election campaign and the marching season. That is why, although theoretically it may be highly desirable to have the Assembly elections at the end of June, the other side of the coin is the disruption which could be caused, the diversion of security forces, the potential flash points and all the other problems. If we were to have the Assembly elections at the end of June, we should be spared the local government elections at the end of May. Could not they be postponed once again? I recognise the undesirability of further postponement but it would be logical having regard to the new situation.

Mr. Stanley Orme: When my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was advocating early Assembly elections, he was saying in effect that the local government elections ought to be postponed again. There is very good reason for it, in the sense that if we have the local government elections first they will inevitably be fought not on local government issues but on the White Paper. It is much more important that the Assembly elections should be fought on the White Paper and, therefore, should come first.

Mr. Mills: I accept that. It reinforces the point I am making.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South also suggested the desirability of having two Bills—the first proceeding with the elections and the second and later one being a constitutional measure. Again I see the merit of that proposal in theory, but in fact it would mean people seeking election to an Assembly with vast areas left open. In many ways that would be undesirable. If we are to have the Assembly elections in June, this House must work day and night to get the legislation on the statute book in time. To proceed at a leisurely pace and produce the constitutional measure afterwards would be highly undesirable.
There are many other things I could talk about but there is one point in par-

ticular that I wish to put on record. Paragraph 112 of the White Paper deals with the Council of Ireland. This is where the misrepresentation by politicians has been very great indeed. Those who misrepresent it must search their own souls as to the consequences of their actions.
I think that the Government are right to have left this area very open because it is a true recognition that such a body can only work, and work effectively, if it proceeds on the basis of consent. One cannot frogmarch people into a Council of Ireland unwillingly. One can only proceed on the basis of consent, as I think has been recognised. I am glad also that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has emphasised that this body must have a practical function and not be a wordy talking shop. I am sure that is right.
The White Paper has been described as a reasonable formula for reasonable men. It will require great courage by politicians, Protestant and Catholic alike, to give it a chance to work. Among the Catholic politicians it will need people who are prepared to stand up to the pressures of the IRA and to isolate it and show that the bulk of Catholic people are prepared to give this new system a chance, are prepared to have a new deal for Northern Ireland and to try to have a new community which has a future. Protestant politicians will equally have to make decisions which will require great courage, to lead the people not into a dead end, not into a further postponement of reality, not into a system of fudging issues, but to put the issues clearly and say that this is what they believe is in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: The Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has occupied a very lonely position. He could have been much more lonely, but he has had several Ministers to assist him and, above all, he has throughout had more support from the Opposition than any other Minister has had before him. I am very glad of that. Similarly his White Paper has received more support than opposition in this country, in the Republic of Ireland and in Ulster itself, and I believe that it deserves it.
I intend to be briefly and gently critical of one or two things in the White Paper because I do not think that they should be in it. I shall not touch on the highlights, which everyone else will. Indeed, what I shall say will probably be said by no one else, which is an excellent reason for saying it.
There is a widespread idea that the bitterness and bigotry in Northern Ireland has its origins in schools and that if all children went to the same sort of school they would soon learn to know and love one another. There has, therefore, been a great cry for educational integration as a means of curing the bitterness and hatred. This point was raised by at least two newspapers on Sunday. Others may have raised it, but I read only two. One of them said in its leader that we should encourage
any sign of readiness to break down the rigid separation of schoolchildren that a divided structure of education enforces throughout the Province.
The other one said:
But is there not something else the Roman Catholic Church can do? Would it not be a wonderful move forward if it were to accept the ending of segregation in education? So that children in their first, most impressionable years could learn to be friends with boys and girls of other faiths, instead of, as now, growing up to hate them?
And the White Paper, in paragraph 20, chips in with:
… in Northern Ireland, it is the Roman Catholic Church which maintains a separate system …".
That is very largely true. The Roman Catholic Church does maintain a separate system, and many Protestants maintain a separate system. But what maintains it above everything else is geography. This is not sufficiently known, but it is pertinent to the White Paper and the Ulster problem as a whole. The two communities are entirely separate: each in its own area, with its own shops, its own pubs, its own cinemas, its own playing fields, its own schools, chapels and churches. It has always been like that. This is nothing new.
If I speak about the past it is not because, as others might say, I am living in the past. The point is that in Ulster the past is the present and always has been. This separation of the two communities, which is at the root of all

the bitterness, is nothing new. It has nothing to do with Stormont, nothing to do with the Government of Ireland Act and nothing to do with the B Specials. It has always existed.
My father spent the first 25 years of his life in Belfast and he used to tell me that never once had he walked along Sandy Row. In fact, he sometimes added, rather smugly, that when he reached his late teens it might have been dangerous for him to be found on Sandy Row because by that time he had begun to play football for a team called Belfast Celtic and this was regarded by Orangemen as a very reprehensible pursuit.
Many years later I lived in West Belfast myself; I spent more than two years there. During all that time I never once met a Protestant—not once. This was not due to any bigotry on my part. It was not the result of some deliberate choice, because here in England some of my closest and dearest friends are Protestants, or at all events non-Catholics. But in the area in which I lived, in the circles in which I moved, there was never a Protestant to be seen. And that is still the case. Much more recently, after I had been a Member of this House for nigh on 20 years, I was for a few days the guest in Downpatrick of an Ulster Unionist Member of this House, Mr. George Currie. Because I had stayed in his house he got into very severe trouble with his constituency party. My stay there was quoted against him at a subsequent adoption meeting. This may sound very comical, but Mr. Currie did not find it at all amusing and he did not live it down. It is still the same.
Whether all children should go to the same type of school, I am not going to argue at the moment. What is beyond argument is that in Northern Ireland they cannot. A Catholic child goes to a Catholic school, a Protestant child goes to a State school, because there is no other school in their area to go to. And not all the White Papers in the world, not all the Acts of Parliament, will alter that.
I mention this, as I have already said, because nobody else is likely to mention it, but also because I think it is a waste of time, print and paper to put these things in the White Paper. But it may be useful, because this has given me


occasion to tell other hon. Members of the House who are not so well acquainted with Northern Ireland just how complete is the separation of the two communities.
The one other point I want to mention concerns the police. The White Paper says:
ministerial powers in relation to the police will be reserved to the Secretary of State.
That is one of the most consoling sentences that I notice in the White Paper. I am delighted that the control of the police is to remain with the Secretary of State. But then it goes on to say that
the Northern Ireland Executive will be invited to act as an advisory committee to the Secretary of State
and that district councils will be set up
to form the basis of local committees with advisory responsibilities in relation to the policing of their districts … they could encourage local citizens to help prevent intimidation, vandalism, etc.
To encourage local citizens to help the police presupposes one enormous condition: it presupposes a condition sine qua non—literally, without it nothing; it presupposes that the local citizens have some confidence in the police. I regret to say that the people on the Falls Road have no confidence in the police. That is about the mildest understatement that could be made on the matter. If I were to be more explicit, more accurate, my language would be much stronger, even violent, but I choose not to use such language. I do not join in the praise which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has extended to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
This lack of confidence, to put it once again very mildly, is no new thing, but it is greater now than ever. One of the reasons is the behaviour of the police at the beginning of the violence. May I remind the House, in case anyone has forgotten, how this age of new violence began, when it began, and where and how? It began when several hundred houses were burned down, several hundred houses from which were chased in terror several hundred Catholic families. The behaviour of the police on that dreadful night and day was such that no one could ever praise that force again.
If we talk about reforming the police and asking people to help them, we must begin to think about the reform of the

Royal Ulster Constabulary. There are areas in the Falls Road—this is the area I know best but there are similar areas in Derry and elsewhere—where the Royal Ulster Constabulary as at present constituted will never be willingly accepted. What we ought to be considering is the reform of the police in Northern Ireland. I have no solutions or suggestions. I am afraid I am not very constructive. Perhaps we will need two police forces, one for those areas and one for the others. The idea may sound absurd, but if anyone has a brighter idea I wish he would stand up and say so.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the battle record, if such it be, of the RUC is rather more damning than he has made out because in the opinion of many of us the trouble started on 5th October 1968, not 1969, when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was savagely assaulted in my presence by the members of the RUC?

Mr. Delargy: I was not ignorant of those events but I did not wish to be provocative and use strong and violent terms to describe the RUC, as I would normally. One of the things which the House should do urgently is consider the reform of the police in Northern Ireland. The ideal solution is to hand law and order over to the police, because otherwise we will have the military over there for ever.
Besides the people of Northern Ireland we have to consider the people of this country too. They have behaved extremely well. The English are a most tolerant people. I mean the people, not their rulers—the ordinary, faithful, decent, patient, common people. They are remarkably tolerant and we should not stretch their tolerance too far. We are already spending their money to the tune of £300 million a year. Their soldiers are already in Northern Ireland undergoing great risks and we ought to get them out as quickly as possible. We can do that only if we have an efficient police force there.

Mr. Maginnis: Before the hon. Member leaves the subject of the police, he will know that I am a former member of the RUC. Is he judging the whole of the RUC on the misdemeanours of the few?

Mr. Delargy: No. I am judging the RUC on the misdemeanours of the many. I am judging it on the misdemeanours of the overwhelming majority.

Mr. Maginnis: Shame.

Mr. Delargy: I agree. It is a great shame that the majority of police behave in that manner.
I will say something now which will surprise my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government side. It has to do with the representation of Northern Ireland in this House. It has been decided, apparently by both sides, that representation should remain as it is. I feel a bit uneasy about this. In spite of what the Prime Minister said, it looks a little like a gerrymander and I have a horror and loathing of gerrymandering. I have been objecting to it in Northern Ireland, where it is worse than anywhere else in the world, for all my adult life, and I would hate there to be even the suspicion that we are a party to any sort of gerrymander
I am not advocating increasing the number of Ulster Unionists in this House —God forbid! I would insist that elections should be by proportional representation. This might encourage a more representative, more non-sectarian representation. At least it ought to be considered. I have not finally made up my mind. I would hate to be generous to the Unionist Party but the Government ought to consider whether representation should be increased, provided that the elections are held under proportional representation.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. He says that he has not made up his mind and is considering it. Will he bear in mind that whatever decision may be reached, and the Government's decision has been stated perfectly clearly, this could never, in any circumstances, be described as gerrymandering because it is an argument as to whether the amount of powers devolved do or do not justify more representation here? That is an argument. It cannot possibly be a matter of gerrymandering.

Mr. Delargy: I accept that mild rebuke. It is not gerrymandering directly because gerrymandering, apart from any-

thing else, means fiddling around with boundaries and we are not doing anything of the kind. No. "Gerrymandering" is the wrong word and because I cannot think of another at the moment I will leave it at that.
I welcome the White Paper. I agree that I have not been constructive but there are some in this House who are even less constructive than I am. There are some who would reject the White Paper outright, and to do that would be destructive indeed. Those who do that are dangerous. They are concerned more with power than with people and 
wherefor are they very dangerous.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) with diffidence because he has great knowledge of Belfast and Ulster generally. One point among others that he mentioned was to do with the people of this country. This is something which frankly worries me and must worry my right hon. Friend.
We have in Ulster between 14 and 18 battalions which have become to all intents and purposes the civil power. My right hon. Friend is perhaps the most powerful colonial figure ever in recent history. He is his own Secretary of State and his own Governor with his executive council of soldiers and Ministers. It is a regime which is really colonial. However admirably he has conducted this regime, and I give him full praise for that, the White Paper is to be welcomed because it means that here can be a step forward to democratic and proper civil authority. This is the problem which faces us above all else: the question of preparing for proper civil authority rather than the military authority in Ulster. I would praise my right hon. Friend for the brilliant way in which he has conducted his military and other operations.
There are only three things I would say on the White Paper itself. I hope that the elections will be soon. I hope that everyone, of whatever political persuasion, will be permitted to stand, so that there can be full and obvious representation. As my right hon. Friend has often said, it is difficult to understand what goes on in Ulster; it is a province and a world of rumour, and the more


these rumours can be personified in persons sitting in the Assembly, the better for all concerned.
Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend will again consider the question of the Governor. I believe that what is suggested would be an error at this stage at the same time as the numbers of Members of Parliament who will have to sit more or less in their numbers in this House of Commons are still undecided.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider or keep in reserve for a time his decision on whether or not there should be a Governor in Northern Ireland. Quite apart from the loyalty to the Crown, quite apart from the historical importance of the Governor—if only for 50 years—there are, as I believe he will agree, advantages, as I, as an old colonial constitutionalist know, in having an additional card in the pack which on occasion can be very useful: because though the civil power of an individual can be devolved, the authority of the Crown is a most useful reserve. One hopes that one day the office of the Secretary of State for Ulster will fade away, that it will not be there for ever. At this stage, therefore, to rid ourselves of the Governor is at least a little previous.
I hope that in the next few months there will be the election and then we will be in the hands of the leaders of Ulster as to what they will want to decide. After all, it is they and only they who can take decisions on Ulster's future. But at the same time as, and parallel with, this process my right hon. Friend and his Ministers will clearly remain in control of matters in Ulster for at least a year. For at least a year this form of colonial administration will continue. I believe that during this period of a year or so it is essential that certain things should be done to the structure of the State in Northern Ireland to make sure that a civil administration can take over without a breakdown of law, order and various other forms of authority. I believe that this is perhaps the most important function that is to be performed by this Government—to see that in certain areas reforms are carried out.
I am a Roman Catholic and I will join issue, though not very fiercely, with the hon. Member for Thurrock on this question of religious education. Some time ago in Calcutta I saw Mother Theresa, a

woman I enormously respect, who has set up one of her missions in Belfast. I was on my way to Bangladesh where at that time the most appalling atrocities were being carried out on both sides. Mother Theresa said when I called upon her that the greatest scandal today was not in Bangladesh but in Ulster, where Christians were killing Christians.
I quite agree about the separation of the communities but there is now a chance, not just in sixth forms, colleges and universities, to integrate not non-denominational education but education in which teachers of both communities can take part—that is, in nursery education. That may not apply in certain areas but there are certain mixed areas where it would apply; and my right hon. Friends, and especially my right hon. Friend who looks after these matters and his Undersecretary, have here a great chance of making some progress.
I turn to two other matters of supreme importance in which it is the duty of this Government to improve the position. I believe that within the Civil Service it is far better to go back to ideas which were much clearer in the 1920s than they are today, calling a spade a spade and saying, as the hon. Member for Thurrock has said, that there is this separation between Catholic and Protestant. I have heard people on the platform say "I do not want to refer to Catholics in public". I say we should call a spade a spade because there is this division, as fierce as the division between Arab and Jew, or between Kikuyu and Luo. When a report on the police was made back in the 1920s people were far more objective and said that one-third of them should be Roman Catholics and two-thirds Protestants. That should be the approach rather than Lord Hunt producing a report which said that recruiting Catholics for the police would be reverse discrimination. God protect us from such enlightenment.
I believe that, far more important than anything in a Bill of Rights, it would be possible now in a Civil Service code to make certain that recruitment to the Civil Service was based on a straight proportion between the religious denominations. That would be going back to 1922 but I believe that it would be a great advantage. Equally I believe that on area boards and other commissions and authorities people should be chosen in


proportion on a religious basis, because it is a reality.

Mr. Whitelaw: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of the Civil Service, I should like to make an important point on which he and many others like him can help. No one can deny that today recruitment to the Civil Service is undoubtedly on a disproportionate basis. The problem is that not enough—if I dare to use his phrase—Roman Catholics are applying to join the Civil Service. I have made representations to certain leaders of the community and it would be very helpful if more was done in the schools to persuade Roman Catholic children that it was possible to join the Civil Service. There is great need for help and encouragement to give them that opportunity and to persuade them that it is worth while to come into recruitment for the Civil Service.

Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend's words are very encouraging, and the more that can be done in that way the better. I believe, however, that this is a vicious circle and that Catholics do not join the Civil Service because they feel that there is discrimination against them. The more it is made clear that there is no such discrimination, the better it will be.
Lastly, on the question of the police, I thought that the hon. Member for Thur-rock was unfair in his broad and total condemnation of a force which has suffered enormous casualties. More than 30 policemen have been killed, more than 100 have been maimed or injured and quite frequently houses have been beseiged and families threatened and so on. These people have been through a wretched rime. Seldom has more opprobrium been thrown at anyone or more slaughter suffered by a force. One can only give them all one's sympathy.
I believe nevertheless that there is a need for reorganisation of the police and of the RUC right down from the central police authority, which I believe has not been successful. The authority has been too big, has had too many people and perhaps has not had sufficient weight and importance on it. At the same time as there is that reorganisation downwards, we should consider something which is perhaps more important, upon which the hon. Member for Thurrock only touched.
I do not know how many hon. Members have read the report of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Intercommunal Relations. He paints an appalling picture of what has been happening in Belfast, with 40,000 and more people having been moved into either Catholic or Protestant ghettos in the past years. He portrays the appalling conditions there and warns of what could happen unless something is done, with communities of 2,000 or 3,000 responsible for their own protection and with armed Catholics and Protestant groups making it impossible for Protestants or Catholics to pass by in safety. It is the most alarming report on Northern Ireland that I have read.
It must be recognised that possibly the strongest and only true loyalties in Northern Ireland are to community or religious groups. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the police have failed to function. I have seen them fail in the Falls Road and in other areas. They are simply not there.
I believe that we have to go back in time and to consider what happened in this country before there was a police force. I advise hon. Members to read what the great Webbs wrote about the situation before the present police force existed here. In the 1730s there was a vestry in Hanover Square where there were 32 watchmen—local men prepared by the local inhabitants. Hon. Members would be advised to go back to the Act of 1835 and the setting up of police in the boroughs. Let them go back to the attempt in 1842 to get every ratepayer to do his time as a village constable. Let them even go back to "Much Ado About Nothing" and to Dogberry and Verges.
There is a chance now to build up a system of unarmed community police under local watch committees. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Ministers will look at this possibility It is far better that the peace-loving people of Ulster, be they Catholic or Protestant, should be enrolled in such a body, looked after, paid for and uniformed if need be, than that they should fall into unofficial communal groups, armed against each other and determined to preserve and make the worst of the prejudices and tribal feelings of that unhappy region.
There should be two movements in terms of the police. The first is a general


reorganisation of the RUC right down the line. The second is to give serious consideration to the creation of unarmed forces based on local watch committees—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate a little on his request for a complete reorganisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and tell us where he feels that the RUC has failed in its organisation?

Mr. Delargy: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) should have been here to listen to me.

Mr. Fraser: I do not want to take up any more time than I need. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will have read the various proposals put forward to the Hunt Committee, concerning more recruitment, getting in more Catholics and setting up separate forces for Belfast and Derry. With these I would agree. I might even have the support of the hon Member for Antrim, North in my suggestion to set up local watch committees. He has himself put forward the idea of having local bodies responsible for local defence.
I conclude by returning to what I said at the beginning of my remarks. This country must put a term to what we can do in the way of providing troops for Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that a military State, with the constant osmosis of the military in absorbing more and more functions, will destroy the will of the Ulster people and eventually will destroy the will of the Army. That is why I say that there must be a term. It is not for the Government to say it now. But I am convinced that, once the Assembly is elected and we have people speaking with the voice of Ulster, then will be the time for this Government to say enough can be enough.

6.35 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: The White Paper begins on page 1 by quoting the Green Paper. Perhaps I in turn may quote that quotation. It reads:
Any division of powers and responsibilities between the national and the regional authorities must be logical, open and clearly understood. Ambiguity in the relationship is a prescription for confusion and misunderstanding. Any necessary checks, balances or controls must be apparent on the face of a new constitutional scheme.

It is my opinion, not by my definition but by the Government's own definition in their Green Paper, that this current White Paper must stand as a prescription for confusion and misunderstanding. It is not logical about what the division of powers will be. It is not clear. Nor is it open about what division of powers exists between the regional and the national authorities.
There are a number of terms which are not entirely new to this House or to the people of Northern Ireland. For example there are references to "power sharing". It is said in the White Paper that there must be power sharing, but it is not clear how in Northern Ireland power sharing is being interpreted to mean what the various political parties want it to mean.
The White Paper fails to define what power sharing is. Indeed it would be impossible for the White Paper to define it because it fails to define what powers are to be shared. We are told of powers which will be reserved to Westminster. Then we are told of powers which will not be given to the Assembly. Further, we are told of powers which may or may not be given to the Assembly. We are told of powers whose devolution depends upon the behaviour of the Assembly.
While I accept that the British Government may find this necessary to safeguard their interests, it is more than ambiguous and more than confusing. To a certain extent it is dishonest. The people of Northern Ireland have been asked to go to the polls and to vote in elections for something about which they know nothing, and the kind of politics which are emerging in the forthcoming Assembly elections are not the kind of politics that one would wish to see in any normal situation. One cannot stand for election to the Assembly on the question, say, of integrated education. A candidate cannot declare in his manifesto his views on industrial matters, on economic matters and on law and order, simply because he does not know, if elected, whether he will have any power to deal with these matters.
We are told that the Assembly, when elected, will sit initially until 30th March 1974. I find that something of a veiled threat to the voters of Northern Ireland. I declare my own interest by accepting that my definition of democracy does not


coincide with the common definition of it which is shared in this House. But I find myself defending not my definition but Parliament's definition of democracy. I find it totally undemocratic to say to people "There will be free elections. If you vote for a certain political philosophy you will be given powers. Your Assembly will be allowed to sit for a period of four years, and ever after you will conduct your own elections. However, if you exercise your free vote in a manner which is not pleasing to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, your Assembly will not have powers."
In the forthcoming elections I shall not cast any of my preference votes in the direction of Mr. Craig or the coalition of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Having a certain sympathy with them, however, I find it unfair to see the threat placed before the population of Northern Ireland that if they decide to vote in such a way that the majority opinion is for that coalition—or for any other—which does not meet with the approval of the Secretary of State, then, come 30th April 1974, the right hon. Gentleman will throw the whole lot to the winds. That may be necessary according to the Secretary of State's definition but it cannot be said to be democratic.
After all, when voters in this country went to the polls at the last election they would perhaps have liked to wait to see who won the election before the issue of the Common Market was introduced. There was a lot of cross-party opinion on that, but people could not say "If you elect the Labour Party you are committed not to joining the Common Market and we shall allow Parliament to decide, but if you elect the Conservative Party there will be a referendum".
Things cannot be done that way. The Government must say "This is the Assembly, this is the power that it shall have, and there is the election, whether we like the outcome or not". That is democracy. It is not democratic to say "There is the election, vote for the coalition of the Northern Ireland Labour Party-Alliance Party whose election manifesto appears to be 'We will buy anything' ". Joe Kavanagh runs his business in Belfast on the slogan "I will buy

anything", which appears to be the philosophy of the middle-ground coalition. If we vote for the "I will buy anything" policy, we shall have an Assembly. If, however, we vote for the philosophy of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), which goes between his own party and that of Mr. Brian Faulkner— "I shall buy something and we will talk about the rest"— we shall get so far but not as far as we would get if we were good and were to vote as the Government would like us to vote.
If, however, in our wisdom—or lack of it—we discover that for different reasons, and voting for different philosophies, the two ends outweigh the middle; if, for example, in our Assembly of 80 we find that, however opposed those who believe in my philosophy are to those who believe in the philosophy of the hon. Member for Antrim, North—if, taking both sections together, they outweigh the "I will buy anything or something" philosophy, we shall not be allowed the democratic right to maintain the Assembly.
Again, here too I have a certain sympathy with the Loyalist policy, and it can no doubt argue its own case—if it emerges in Northern Ireland, again calling a spade a spade—and in the struggle from 1968 to the present time, if the population has learned nothing else, the Loyalists have learned that they are loyal to a country which is doubtful whether it wants them, and the Catholics have learned that they want to join a country which is doubtful whether it wants them, so we are clear on one point—that in this Assembly the extreme sections find that they are in a majority together but neither has power on its own, the one common point of agreement may be that they do not like the terms on which they are offered citizenship of the United Kingdom. It may equally be that they will not like the terms on which they might be able to join the existing Republic of Ireland.
The one point which they may have in common is that they ought to go their own ways. It is undemocratic at this stage to refer to such a situation as a disaster because, after all, one would be dealing with a democratically elected majority in Northern Ireland, whether one


liked its opinion or not. One would have to talk about negotiation or non-negotiation of independence.
There would then come the question of British aid. People have been told— and again this is pressure at the election —that that kind of negotiation is out of the question. My opinion, given my knowledge of the history of Governments, is that once one comes to the fact nothing is out of the question, and this Government may find themselves going back on their statements about the—

Mr. Dick Douglas: I am trying to follow the logic of the hon. Lady's argument. Is she suggesting that these two extreme groups may be united in wanting to go their own way in finality? Would they be putting that as their view at the elections?

Miss Devlin: That is another point. For some time the Loyalist coalition has been talking quite openly about what it would do. I am trying to talk objectively about a possibility which the House must envisage. I think that an independent Ulster could not possibly survive. If the two sides came to agree upon independence, they would fall out when they were trying to work out how that independence would come about. We are talking not about what I believe, but about what the Secretary of State believes and about a possibility which may emerge. After all, the Loyalist coalition has talked about independence, and they must have some ideas on the subject. The Provisionals have talked about independence if there is a nine-county Ulster, so they too must have some idea of the political structure involved.
What I am saying is that the White Paper allows for that kind of confusion to grow because it does not state the relationship between the House of Commons and the new Assembly. It does not state here and now how far it can go and how far it cannot go. It does not state what powers it has or does not have. This is a game of ball where the biggest child has the ball and says "We shall play a game so long as it is played by my rules. If it is not, I shall take my ball away." That might be a factual situation but it is not democracy.
The White Paper has not solved the problem. It has provided room for

changes which may foster confusion. No doubt each of the parties will say that they will do either A, B or C. Because the White Paper allows for A, B or C to be done, people will be elected on nothing. It will be impossible in the forthcoming elections to decide on anything other than to which general coalition to belong. There are those who believe that the White Paper cannot work, those who believe that it might work and those who believe that at any price they will make it work. That is not the basis on which to achieve an assembly to run the affairs of any country. That is the point I am trying to make.
I come next to the kind of assembly that we shall get. We have been told that the Special Powers Act will be repealed and that certain emergency measures will be introduced. Will the abolition of the Special Powers Act mean that those organisations which are now proscribed will no longer be proscribed? Will the Provisional Sinn Fein be allowed to contest the elections? There is no question of someone saying that he would like them to be allowed or that they ought to be allowed to contest the elections. We should be told definitely whether or not they will be allowed to contest them. That is an entirely different organisation with a political philosophy different from that of the official Republican clubs. Will they be allowed to contest the elections?
There is a peculiar anomaly in Northern Ireland. In my constituency practically every town has a Republican club. In some towns they actually run and man the local advice centres. They represent workers at tribunals. They fight to meet the needs of people for maternity grants and allowances for families. At some local levels they are accepted and allowed to do so. They negotiate over the question of demonstrations. Even at a higher level with the Civil Service and members of the police force and authority they are accepted.
Yet one finds in other areas—for example in Strabane, where a Republican club runs an advice centre and deals with every aspect of local problems and is accepted by the labour exchange and the police—that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive refuses to deal with problems which they raise because theirs is a proscribed organisation. We cannot have people standing for election and then


told that they cannot take their seats because their organisation is illegal. Nor can we have people prosecuted because they are working for such organisations in elections.
I am attempting to look objectively at the problem. I have my own views, but I am attempting to see how the White Paper deals with the situation. I appreciate the position put forward by the Government about violence. They argue that Sinn Fein cannot be allowed to fight the elections while the IRA exists. I ask the Secretary of State and the House to consider something which perhaps at this stage they cannot understand. This House and the Government deal with what they understand to be law and order and rightful authority. Because of the history of immediate problems in Northern Ireland there are sections of the population who in normal circumstances are law-abiding citizens.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred to localised police. These people within their ghettoes see the local UDA or the local IRA, whom the Government see as ruthless terrorists and law breakers, but to a large extent they are seen by local people not as intimidators but as exactly what the right hon. Member was talking about. To these people they are a law-enforcing agency which can protect them not only from sectarian violence from a neighbouring ghetto but from petty crimes in their own area.
I agree that this is rough justice. It is not justice as this country might understand it, but to the people in those areas where there are no police and there is no confidence in what this House understands as a police force, that kind of rough justice is accepted. It is accepted by the local people that the IRA should shoot in the knee someone who continually pilfers from someone in their neighbourhood. This House should begin to understand that; then perhaps it can understand the whole question of violence.
Many Catholics in the North of Ireland find it hard to understand why the British Government will not differentiate between Sinn Fein and the IRA yet at the same time can differentiate between its own political and military philosophy. Many Catholics, and indeed many Protestants,

see their respective military organisations as respected defence organisations.
This is not an attitude with which beyond a certain extent I can agree, but it should be remembered that when we talk about "taking the gun out of Irish politics" this is not a one-sided affair. It is a question not only of taking their guns out but of taking British guns out as well. That is how they see it. Therefore it is not illogical to them that they should be allowed to contest elections whether the IRA exists or not. Voicing my own opinion, I should say that unless both wings of Sinn Fein are allowed to contest the election, there is very little chance of ending the military side to their politics. The Government may find it hard to understand, but one cannot close the door of political channels to them and expect them to do nothing.
The Government may say that one cannot expect them to maintain their guns and open the door to them, but it is up to the Government to open the electoral door in the hope that by opening that channel to more and more people whom frustration originally drove to violence, the need for violence will end. Hon. Members may say that it is not right, I am not saying that it is right, but so long as it seems right to the people there they will continue to do it.
One has only to look at the most recent and probably most horrific manifestation of violence in Northern Ireland in the past few days. In any humane terms there can be very few things more horrific to imagine than the cold and calculated plotting in the manner necessary to kill the three British soldiers. One can see how horrifying it is that a group of people actually sat down and worked out a long-term plan not for sniping at a soldier, not for violence which comes out of a riot, but for that kind of terrorist activity. Whoever did it must have thought, in what to me and to most people are utterly distorted minds, that that activity had some value for them. I accept that hon. Members cannot be objective about that kind of horror against their soldiers.

Mr. Orme: I am following the hon. Lady's argument, which is very detailed, with great interest, as I am sure the


House is doing. From her reading of the situation, if the bans were lifted both from the Republican clubs and Sinn Fein, does she think that that would have any influence on those who at the moment are using guns? I know that she is looking at the situation from the outside, but does she think that it would have any influence? This, I am sure, would have a bearing on anything that the Government might decide.

Miss Devlin: I believe it certainly would, in two respects. I believe that there are large numbers of people who must be understood in their own terms. Large numbers of people see violence as their only effective means of expression and they may find some other channel by which to attempt redress of their grievances, some other channel for their exercise of power. Those who do not want to exercise power in that way may well find that they no longer have the support of people who share their policies—people who are prepared to say at this stage "There is a door. If you are really interested in your policies, why not use it?" People do not really like violence.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Taking this a stage further, does the hon. Lady think that the result would be accepted by the minority if it were something totally alien to what they themselves wanted?

Miss Devlin: I believe it would. I cannot speak for the Provisional IRA, but I believe that it would for the following reason. This House talks about a minority which holds so many to ransom, but it does not. It functions, and functions effectively, because no matter how their actions appear on this side of the Channel, there are enough people weighing that action in all its horror against their own situation who are still sufficiently committed to that minority to shield, to hide, to feed and to clothe them. I believe that, given some means of expression, that minority itself, whose interest is to work towards a united Ireland, may find it more effective. I cannot promise—I am not a member of the Provisional IRA—but I am putting forward a risk and a gamble that I believe the Government have to take.
If the Government do not take the gamble, if they keep the door closed, there is no question but that the violence will continue. All I am saying is, open the door and there is a good chance that the violence will end. I cannot make promises, and I have no intention of making promises or of speaking for people for whom I cannot speak, but I am saying that it is a gamble that the Government must take.
The Government must also remember, when dealing with the whole of the White Paper, that the Prime Minister's figures of arms finds and guns showed that there was a fairly even balance. The courts have put away, we discover, about as many Protestants as Catholics. The Army has found as many Protestant guns as Catholic guns. But detention without trial is still something that is visited in the main on the Catholic population.
Despite the equality of lawlessness, as it would be seen here, there are still about 300 Catholics in detention and fewer than 30 Protestants. Therefore detention without trial, by whatsoever name, is still seen in this light. Indeed, the majority of the people detained are people who have had no bearing on the development of politics in Northern Ireland because they have been there since the introduction of internment.
Unless the Government are prepared to move on internment, there will be civil disobedience and there will be a belief in the Catholic community that the law is no part of them, that order is not order in which they have freedom but order which is imposed upon them. Again, that is a gamble which the Government will have to take if there are to be elections and assemblies and an attempt to normalise things so as to impose the machinery of law and order.
People must be brought before the courts. I am as opposed to the internment of the 30 Protestants as to the internment of 300 Catholics, but again facts are facts. The Loyalist population opposes only the internment of its own 30 people and the Catholic people feel, with some justification, that the internment of those 30 is only to balance the scale, to still the accusation of discrimination. This is something that the-Government must consider.

Mr. Winterton: Before the hon. Lady leaves the grievances of these special minorities, the wings of the Sinn Fein, will she explain what are the special grievances which cannot be reflected through existing parties in Northern Ireland which are not illegal, such as the SDLP, the party that she represents, the Unity Party and other parties? I think that the SDLP has the ultimate objective of a united Ireland. The hon. Lady implied that this was the special grievance of those parties. Why cannot they use the existing parties instead of resorting to this bestial and brutal behaviour of killing?

Miss Devlin: I will come back to that emotive language about bestial and brutal killing. I remember one incident in particular.
These people have their own philosophies. The Provisional Sinn Fein, which I believe in Irish politics to be somewhat to the Right, believes in a regional structure for Ireland. The official Republican movement, which is much older than either me or my party, believes in a Socialist Ireland and has no allegiance to the existing Government or structure of the Irish Republic. I have often wondered why I do not join the Official Sinn Fein instead of taking the vast majority of them into the very small party of which I am a member.
When he talks about their bestial and brutal behaviour, I do not expect the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to be objective but I do expect him to realise that, although he talks of law and order, there are those in Ireland who call that bestial and brutal behaviour. I was horrified by and I condemn—in fact, I find it almost impossible to understand what breed of mind plotted it—the killing of the three soldiers. But I equally condemn the killing of what hon. Members would call terrorists or bestial and brutal people.
I know the facts of the case I want to mention. Hon. Members might call them terrorists but I prefer to call both of the men involved soldiers—

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: No.

Miss Devlin: The hon. Member may disagree with this, but I remember an instance last October when two men sitting in a car in a car park were taken out of the car by members of the British

Army. Hon. Members will say that this is not true because they refuse to consider that it is true. The car was searched and in the boot was a rifle. Those men were breaking the law and there was a court to deal with them—yet both those men are dead.
They are dead because they were dealt with in the following fashion. They were taken out of the car. Whether the soldier panicked or not I do not know, but when one soldier announced his find the soldier who was guarding Mr. Hugh Herron fired his rifle and Mr. Hugh Herron fell dead. John Paddy Mullan immediately tried to escape because he thought that he too would be killed.
The inquest has yet to take place, although the death occurred in October. But the body of John Paddy Mullan showed clearly that he was shot several times through the back at a distance of less than 30 yards. He could have been brought down by what is supposed to be the regulation shot in the knee. The Army never claimed that there was a weapon on his body. I find that horrific because that individual was a friend of mine. Hon. Members too may find it horrific.
The Government must understand that, while they talk in terms of their own Army and of law and order, they have to accept that now, not only in the Catholic community but in the Protestant community, the fibre of what we call law and the respect for what is called law has so broken down that people have made their own law. They are not intimidated by the IRA or the UDA. They depend on them, they feel that they need them, and until such time as we can deal objectively with our guns and your guns we shall get nowhere. Until such time as we stop producing in this House waffle, ambiguity and illogical nonsense such as we have in the White Paper, we shall not get anywhere.
I have my own fundamental beliefs. I reject the White Paper because I do not believe that in the long term it can solve the problems of Northern Ireland or of the Irish people as a whole. I do not say that the majority of people in Northern Ireland share my beliefs, but I am strongly suggesting—again, as objectively as I can—that if the Government want to make the White Paper work or even last as long as their


own date, 30th March 1974, they should get out of the mess of internment as quickly as possible and should immediately repeal at least that section of the legislation which says that Sinn Fein cannot contest the elections.
If they cannot fight through the ballot box, their experience and history shows that Sinn Fein will fight through the bullet. As the history of this Government has shown, we may not end up with a very successful independent Ulster or a very successful independent Ireland. Terrorism is mistakenly said in this House not to work. Terrorism does work and it works very badly. Terrorism has produced the independence of more countries from Britain than one can imagine. It has left almost every one of them with an even worse situation.
If this Government are prepared to waffle their way on until terrorism succeeds in separating the people from the United Kingdom, we will be left in a situation in which we have, be it Mr. Craig's Ulster or Mr. MacStiofain's Ulster, at any rate not a very satisfactory place in which to live.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: In following the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) I should like to draw the attention of the House straight away to the last and perhaps the main point of her speech when she asked that Sinn Fein be allowed to fight the elections. She suggested that if they were allowed to fight the elections perhaps the IRA would give up its violent course, but I would suggest that her arguments themselves are self-contradictory.

Miss Devlin: I made it perfectly clear that I could not make any such suggestion. What I said was that if they are not permitted to contest the election one could guarantee a continuation of violence, and that one had to take the gamble that if they were allowed to contest the election they might cease the violence. I made no suggestion or promise.

Mr. McMaster: If one simply refers to the White Paper one will realise that the plebiscite which was held just two weeks ago in Northern Ireland showed clearly that some 592,000 electors voted

in favour of retaining the constitutional link—that is, almost 600,000—as opposed to just 6,000 who voted in favour of Republicanism.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. McMaster: I wish to make a little progress with my speech; then I will give way; but I have a number of points to cover.
I know there was a deliberate boycott on the minority side. I saw this in my own constituency. I went down to the New Lodge Road during the day, where in the one polling station only two people, a man and wife, had the courage to vote. This example of intimidation does no credit to the minority. No one can tell me that only two people wanted to vote during the whole day. In any area of any country one always gets more than two people. There were several thousands of people entitled to vote at that polling station.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would it not be right to say that many people who wanted to vote, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, and felt that there might be some danger in going to poll, used the postal ballot? Would that not be a fair comment?

Mr. McMaster: Yes, I agree that that is a fair analysis. One quite serious criticism of this White Paper is that it refers to the minority, meaning, of course, the Catholics, because the White Paper speaking of the minority, does not just mean Republicans; the figures there mean the one-third of the population who are Catholics, implying that they are all Republican. This is far from true, and I think the plebiscite showed it.
If one analyses the figures of the plebiscite, the referendum, one comes inevitably to the conclusion that between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the Catholic population voted in favour of the constitutional link.

Mr. McNamara: We have continuously had conclusions being drawn about the way Catholics or Protestants did or did not vote, but the only evidence which exists is the number of people who polled. We do not know where they polled, or at which polling stations, or in how many


areas. We wanted to know but we were not told. The hon. Member cannot possibly draw any conclusions like that.

Mr. McMaster: The conclusion is, I think, quite simple. Is the hon. Member saying that some 90 per cent. of the Protestant community all voted? It is an incredible figure. I can say that from observation in my own constituency, which I went round. I myself estimated that between 70 per cent. and at the very outside 80 per cent. voted, but in the majority of polling stations about 70 per cent.

Miss Devlin: I think that in all fairness the hon. Member must accept that one cannot say whether 70 per cent. or 90 per cent. or what percentage of the population voted in a particular way according to their religion, but, taking the natural course of Northern Ireland politics, one can certainly say a certain percentage voted twice.

Mr. McMaster: I am afraid that I must treat that, and, indeed, all the criticisms which my remarks provoked, as really being a criticism of the plebiscite itself, because what hon. Members are saying is that the plebiscite was no use because one cannot say it proved one thing or the other. I do not accept this. I think it established quite clearly that the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland do wish to maintain the constitutional link.
I accept that what the hon. Lady has said was sincere. I accept that the IRA are not just fighting alone but have the protection of a certain proportion of the minority in their areas. The hon. Lady asked, among other things: if the Sinn Fein were entitled to fight in the election would this not be fair? I would refer her and other hon. Members to the actual record of that body. The IRA have killed now a total 760 people in Northern Ireland. They have murdered some 235 members of the security forces—that is, the Army, the police and the Reserves. The hon. Lady asks what could be more bestial than the cold-blooded killing of the three soldiers? This is an invidious comparison, but I would draw her attention to the 33 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who have been taken from their homes, many of them cruelly tortured by the IRA, and then shot dead.

I would ask her if that is not bestial behaviour. How can people responsible—

Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to continue to assert as fact something which has been strenuously denied by the security authorities—that is, that many members of the UDA were tortured?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order there for me. I am not responsible for what happens over there. I am responsible only that people should be in order here, and so far they have been.

Mr. McMaster: I speak with grave consideration on this matter. The bodies have been examined, and I have spoken to people who have seen them—

Mr. McManus: Which bodies?

Mr. McMaster: —and it is quite clear that what I say is correct. How, I ask, can men who are responsible for this sort of action in Northern Ireland, for over 30,000 explosions which have resulted in 202 deaths and over 7.000 serious injuries in Northern Ireland, be allowed to contest the elections? This is asking more of human endurance than it is right to ask in the case of the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Mr. McManus: May I ask the hon. Member two questions? Is it not clear that six or seven known members of the UDA are at present on trial for murder and that one or two of them, as I understand, have been found guilty, and yet no one has suggested that the UDA should not be allowed to contest the election? Is it not also a fact that many hon. Members opposite have said publicly and often that if the democratic process fails there they will fight, but that nobody suggests that they should not be allowed to contest the election? Mr. Craig and an hon. Gentleman opposite have hinted that if the democratic process fails and if England tries to put them out of the Union, then, by So-and-So, they will fight, thereby indicating they will attempt violence, and yet it has not been suggested that they have no right to contest the election.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for


the hon. Member to make in the House remarks about another hon. Member— about things I did not say. What I said was that if this House tried to put us into the side of Ireland we would fight. Let us get it straight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Member should seek to intervene in the ordinary way and not put to me points of order like that.

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry, and I hesitate to go into these details—

Mr. McManus: No doubt.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The hon. Member relishes them.

Mr. McMaster: —but having listened to the speech of the hon. Member opposite, and in view of the fact that we are debating the White Paper, one must present to this House a picture of how the people of Northern Ireland feel. Hon. Members of this House have never been asked to stand up to casualties like this. This country went to war twice in this century when it was not attacked in the way that the people of Northern Ireland have been attacked. Everyone asks us to exercise restraint. What part of the population of Britain has faced an onslaught like this and been asked not to retaliate? Were there any complaints in this House when we bombed cities in Germany at a time when our women and children were being killed here?
For three years we have stood up to an onslaught of tremendous viciousness and savagery deliberately mounted by the IRA to achieve a political end. It is the people responsible for this onslaught that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) would like to see fighting elections and becoming heads of government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winterton: I do not think that the House can go all the way on that point with my hon. Friend. Would he not say that these despicable people would suffer such a savage defeat at the polls that they would not dare to offer themselves?

Mr. McMaster: If tempers were cooler in Northern Ireland and if the history had not been one of such terrific violence and savagery over the last three years,

perhaps what my hon. Friend says would be right.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McMaster: No, I have given way a great deal. I cannot do so again because I want to make a reasonably short speech.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The hon. Gentleman should sit down, as he has finished now.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred to the ambiguities in the White Paper. On its first page the White Paper sets out a recital of the statement in the paper published in October 1972, "The Future of Northern Ireland ", and two requisites of the proposals which the Government put forward. First, paragraph 2(c) states that the
division of powers and responsibilities between the national and the regional authorites must be logical, open and clearly understood. Ambiguity in the relationship is a prescription for confusion and misunderstanding.
Sub-paragraph (e) states that
Any new institutions must be of a simple and businesslike character, appropriate to the powers and functions of a regional authority.
I am in agreement with the hon. Lady in that if one studies the White Paper one finds that it is anything but clear, simple and businesslike. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out this recital in the preamble to the White Paper because it clearly does not follow the requisites he prescribed.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), I feel a deep debt of gratitude to the work which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done in Northern Ireland. I appreciate the work done by him and his Front Bench colleagues over the past year in seeking a solution to the problems in Ulster. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider what has happened during the past weekend and whether we do not have two distinct problems in Northern Ireland: first, the problem of a fair, equitable administration of the province: second, separately and apart, the problem of violence. These must be treated separately, otherwise my right hon. Friend will be very disappointed because, in spite of the plebiscite, the


White Paper and the constitutional legislation which is to follow, the violence of the IRA is bound to continue.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend some detailed questions as this is the time when one should question and try to clarify the rather vague, ambiguous recitals in the White Paper.
Paragraph 32 of the White Paper, a fundamental paragraph, states that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is to be protected. It provides that this will not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. What does my right hon. Friend mean by "consent"? Are we to have a series of plebiscites? How is this to be interpreted?
Paragraph 41 provides that four years will be the appropriate term of the new Assembly. Is four years appropriate? If this Assembly leads to change in the balance of power from time to time, is it right that an administration in Northern Ireland should have a life as short as four years? Modern planning requires more than even five years, as the imperial Government know. How can proper plans be made and put into effect in such a short time if at the end of that period the Government are to change? Is it a fixed, final term or can it be extended?
Paragraph 39 contains the provisions on proportional representation. I understand the logic of this paragraph, that this, perhaps, is the only way of increasing the size of the new Assembly to 80 and having early elections. Is it the intention to keep to the 12 Westminster constituencies and have five or six, and in some cases seven, members elected? All the appearances show that four, five or six parties will contest these elections. If there are to be five or six seats, the electorate will be presented with a list of 30 or 40 names. How can ordinary people be expected to sort out an order of preference in such a long list? Is this a sensible, reasonable and workable system? I should prefer a straight vote for the ordinary, single-member constituency. But if we are to have PR, would it not be easier to subdivide and have smaller areas represented by a smaller representation?
Paragraphs 35 to 43 deal with the oath which will be taken. I hope that we

shall be told a little more about the form of the oath which members of the new Executive will be required to take.
Concerning paragraph 44, will my right hon. Friend tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland what part he intends to play when the new administration is set up in Northern Ireland? This is a fundamental matter. What part will he play in appointing heads of departments and the head of the Executive? How far will he be affected by the majority wishes of the Assembly? Once it is elected and in operation and has selected the heads of its various committees, what will be my right hon. Friend's rôle? Does he intend to play an immediate rôle, discussing with the Executive from day to day the matters with which it is dealing, or to withdraw a little and stand apart? This matter is of great importance. Since the White Paper was published, I have found that this matter has been causing considerable concern in my constituency.
Paragraph 52 raises the question of the will of the majority. Will a majority vote of the Assembly be final when issues of the membership of the Executive are in dispute? I repeat the question because it is a fundamental one which has caused great concern to the Unionist Council, which met to consider these matters yesterday. Will members of the Executive be restricted to persons who will work peacefully for the good of Northern Ireland in a constitutional way?
If the White Paper and the constitutional Bill which is to follow are to have any chance of success, the membership of the Executive must be restricted to people of good will, people who are prepared to work peacefully and constitutionally for the good of Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 53 raises the question what is to happen to executive power? Is it to be completely devolved, or not, to the new Assembly? I apologise to the House for running through these points quickly but they are vital points which have been raised by my constituents and which must be clarified.
Paragraph 56 deals with the franchise. Will my right hon. Friend clarify which franchise is to be used? I have received correspondence and representations on the matter. Is it to be the Stormont franchise or the Imperial franchise?
I deal with the paragraphs in the White Paper chronologically, although not in order of importance, and I turn now to paragraphs 81 and 82, which deals with the position of the Governor. The people in Northern Ireland are very disturbed by the way in which this office has been abolished. We are determined to maintain the constitutional link with the United Kingdom, and, in my view, this link would be weakened if the representative of Her Majesty the Queen in Northern Ireland were removed. Unfortunately, Her Majesty has not visited Northern Ireland frequently—[Interruption.]—and, therefore, it is important for the people of Northern Ireland that this office should be retained. I have heard, without knowing whether it is true, that the Governor has been dealt with in a rather discourteous maanner.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is necessary to interrupt my hon. Friend at this point. I must state categorically that that rumour, which I have heard, is absolutely untrue. Since I have stayed with the Governor and had great courtesy, kindness and help from him, it would be a reflection on me if such a rumour were true. The Governor would readily confirm that this is the position. He will be looked after in every way due for the service he has given.

Mr. McMaster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. It has caused considerable concern. I am grateful to him for clearing it up. We, in Northern Ireland, hold the Governor in deep affection and esteem.
I pass to paragraphs 83 to 89, which lead me to ask my right hon. Friend what tax powers are to be transferred to the new Executive. What will its financial responsibilities be and what part will members of the Executive play in matters of national interest, such as negotiation with the Common Market and the EEC countries?
Paragraph 106 refers to discussions and negotiations which are to be had with the South of Ireland. Will members of the Executive in Northern Ireland meet their opposite numbers in Dublin as equals? What does acceptance of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland entail? I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying earlier today 

that there could be no Council of Ireland until the Republic accepted the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. I presume that my right hon. Friend will confirm that to be the case and that it means that the Constitution of the Republic will be altered, because it has been, and remains, offensive to people of Northern Ireland to read that Constitution and to find in the recital that it purports to relate to the 32 counties of Ireland. If the Constitution of Northern Ireland is to be properly recognised there must be some amendment to the Constitution of the Republic.
What measures will be discussed in the Council of Ireland? People in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland believe it would be wise to meet their opposite numbers, and indeed, there have been meetings in the past, to discuss such matters as control of terrorism, mutual trade and tourism. But there is a fear that the status of Northern Ireland might be discussed, and this would be completely unacceptable. I make that perfectly clear to the House and to my right hon. Friend.
Finally, I deal with the major point of security. Will my right hon. Friend spell out the Government's intentions in respect of the control of internal security? This matter must be retained by the administration in Northern Ireland if there is to be an effective administration there. I completely repudiate the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who attacked the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The police, as I showed in statistics, have given devoted service in Northern Ireland. They have been savagely attacked, many have been killed and many more injured. The control of the police and internal security will be an important issue when normality is restored to Northern Ireland and perhaps my right hon. Friend will say what is meant by that phrase which is used in the White Paper.
I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision about the number of Northern Ireland Members at Westminster. Even though considerable powers are to be given—I appreciate that the Prime Minister said those powers are in some way greater than the powers previously given to Stormont in respect


of economic and financial control—I suggest that the number of Northern Ireland Members at Westminster could be increased. The 12 Westminster Members who represent Northern Ireland play a vital part in fundamental issues which are decided at Westminster, matters including taxation—and it is a fundamental principle of British justice that there should be no taxation without representation— foreign affairs and the Common Market. It is only fair and just that Northern Ireland should have a full voice and vote when these subjects are debated and when votes are taken in the House. I fail to see why the Government and the Shadow Cabinet can object to the forms of government in Northern Ireland and say that there is not proper representation of the minority and at the same time deprive the whole of the population of proper representation in the affairs of this House.
I recommend, and have said so in Northern Ireland, that the people in my constituency and in Northern Ireland generally should accept the White Paper. It can be turned into a workable form of government in Ulster. But I would ask my right hon. Friend to remember just how tense is the situation.
I have asked my right hon. Friend to deal with certain points which have caused concern. When the Bill is presented there will no doubt be a number of amendments, and in order that the White Paper should pave the way to peace and good administration in Ulster. I ask him to give sympathetic consideration to the concern we express. Unless there is clarification of the questions which I have raised and which have caused concern, there will be problems. I hope that some of these vital issues will become the subject of amendments. I assume that the Bill has already been drafted—

Mr. Whitelaw: It has not.

Mr. McMaster: I am delighted to hear that. Perhaps, therefore, the matters that I have raised can be dealt with in the Bill. That would avoid any difficulty in putting down amendments to it. Unless these points are properly covered, the Bill which emerges may turn out to be unworkable, and that would be a tragedy too serious to face.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to violence and extremism on both sides, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, and she also referred to the number of arms that have been found and where they have been found. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the casualty figures. Would there be such a body as the UDA in Northern Ireland if it were not for the fear that we shall be sold out? I do not believe that Northern Ireland will be sold out. That has been guaranteed.
Many hon. Members have suggested that if the killings go on the Army should withdraw. It is because of such suggestions in the House, on the BBC and in the Press that the people of Ulster are frightend. They know what the IRA is doing; they have seen violence committed. When I was in the centre of Belfast yesterday I heard four bombs go off near me. Can hon. Members think what that is like? It is a wartime situation, and no one wants to be left defenceless. No wonder ordinary men arm themselves for their protection. I make no excuse for it, but it is a fact that people are armed and are prepared to fight to defend themselves if they have to.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government not to hesitate to condemn violence by the IRA as the fundamental cause of the disturbances in Northern Ireland. That violence has escalated over the last three years and has led to the death of 165 British soldiers—110 in the past year since Stormont was dissolved. Do the people who carry out such hideous attacks upon the Army and the police really want political reform? They must be dealt with separately by the Army, with resolution and courage. I ask the House to consider that as a separate matter from the White Paper. With this qualification, I wish every success to my right hon. Friend in this initiative.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not like having to talk to the House about the length of speeches, but I have a long list of hon. Members who wish to speak, and I am getting more and more depressed about my chances of being able to call them. At the present rate there will be time for only four more speeches today.


I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind. I know that hon. Members feel moved and wish to express their feelings, but other hon. Members must be given the chance to say what they wish to say. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am putting undue pressure on them. In the last resort the situation is in their hands, not mine.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I shall pay heed to your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has to be grateful to the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster)
—apart from the great length of their speeches— for having brought to the House the blinkered vision of both sides by their continued defence of their own side in the Northern Irish dispute. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster put up a case in defence of the IRA which could have been made with equal conviction about the Mafia, who, in a sense, protect their own people and support them against counter-violence. Then we heard accusations from the Protestant side about who began the violence and who is responsible for its continuance.
I look back to my last speech on this subject in which I dealt with the wrongs of the minority in Northern Ireland with whom I sympathised and whom I supported. They suffered discrimination in housing and in jobs, but none of this was, for a moment, worth the misery and suspicion that has been engendered since 1968 on each side, which has cost 750 deaths and is now producing 1,000 explosions a year. This community as a living, tangible entity has been virtually destroyed. That is a commentary on how violence breeds violence. It is a commentary on how hatred and suspicion are used to justify these terrible deeds and afford the excuse for similar deeds to be committed by the other side.
That is why the House should snatch at anything that offers a way out of this situation and a positive way forward, and that is why I regret having any doubts about the White Paper. Despite these worries, I want it to succeed. But I have many doubts and worries, not so much on the concept behind the White Paper but on whether it can overcome the fears and the suspicions that have been manifested in the House tonight.
I begin by sketching in the events that I assume the Government hope will take place. The Government presumably hope that there will rapidly be elections for the Assembly on the basis of the Act based on the White Paper. They hope that a certain number of the Protestant community will be returned who will be prepared to work the principles contained in the White Paper, especially the key element of power sharing. They hope that the other sectors of the population, those in between the two extreme groups and those in the minority community, will likewise return either parties on individuals willing to work the power-sharing system. They hope that, if moderate representatives of the two main groups are in a majority in the new Assembly, the Secretary of State will be able to turn to the Members of the Assembly who are willing to work the system and constitute them the Executive and devolve power on them. This is stage 1, and there will be many difficulties before we get that far.
It is hoped that in stage 2 this new Executive will proceed to govern Northern Ireland through the Assembly in a manner which is sufficiently different from the past to create confidence in both communities which will spread down to the rank and file. The new pattern of government will have to be sufficiently different to cause the Catholic population to cease to shelter, succour and feed the IRA, and the Protestant population to feel that it is no longer necessary to maintain their men under arms, their vigilantes and patrols. It is hoped that because of this new atmosphere these two armed groups will be disbanded and progress will be made towards the rebuilding of community life on a non-discriminatory basis. I presume that that is the Government's expected way forward.
What worries me is the number of hurdles that have to be cleared before this satisfactory development takes place. What can we in the House do to make this kind of progress and better atmosphere more possible? It might be useful for me to sketch in a few comments on what should happen to enable this to come about. The most crucial initial hurdle is that the old Unionist Party, which used to represent the majority of the population, should be clear that the issue at the next


election will be whether or not it is prepared to work the White Paper.
I am worried that there will be talk of the possibilities of negotiation about the White Paper and of the Bill being changed so that the Unionist Party is able to dodge the great issue of whether or not it will work the White Paper. I think it is better that there should be a split in the Unionist Party. I want that amorphous gathering of politicians to split into two sections: first, those people who believe that the White Paper is unworkable, who do not want to work it but want to go bust for UDI on their own and to try to save what is left of the system they used to know before Stormont was abolished; secondly, there are those elements in the Unionist Party who are prepared to work a system of the kind set out in the White Paper by the Government. I want those two sections to go separately in to the election, each putting its distinct point of view. Only in that way will the public know what they are voting for, and only in this way can the Government know, after the election, whether they have the majority they want in the Assembly. In order to clear that hurdle, I hope the Secretary of State will make it clear that there will be no negotiation on this basic issue of power sharing, but that it is clear and unavoidable and must be accepted by either side.
We must then deal with another matter. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster spoke about confusion and obscurity in the White Paper. That is quite wrong. The White Paper makes clear that for practical purposes there will be devolved to the Assembly the same powers—barring security—as were exercised by the old Stormont Assembly. But the form has to be different because in the years between 1920 and 1970, while that Assembly existed, it passed some powers back to Westminister. It developed other powers which did not exist in the 1920 Act; thus, it arrived at a somewhat new situation. It must be made clear in peoples' minds that the new Assembly will be as effective in governing the internal affairs of Northern Ireland as was the old Stormont Assembly. That point should be made clear, and it should not be an issue at the election.
The consequences have their effect on the question of representation in this House. I thought that the under-representation of Northern Ireland was wrong under the old pre-direot rule system. In effect, the overall decisions of principle on health, housing and education were taken here. It was only the local variations which were left, in practice though not in law, to the people of Northern Ireland; they had relinquished certain powers by their own voluntary will. The resulting situation is being recreated by the White Paper. Therefore it still holds that the people of Northern Ireland should have their fair representation in this Chamber because this House will decide the overall issues of principle. This lack of full representation is, therefore, a continuing anomaly. It is one on which the Government would do well to concede.
In addition to a clear contest between those Unionists who are prepared to work the power-sharing inherent in the White Paper and those who are not, it is also important that when the minority and its politicians stand at the next election people will want to be clear whether they stand for continuing chaos, disorder and bloodshed, or whether they will want to try to take some advantage of the proposed system and make it work.
I welcome the stand taken by the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Alliance Party and the SDLP. One point —probably the only point—on which I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster is that the Sinn Fein should be allowed to contest the elections—and for this reason. Only if the Catholic community, like the Protestants, presented with the alternative of whether they wish to go on with the present disastrous bloodshed or wish to elect politicians who are prepared to work the White Paper, take part in the system to be created by the White Paper, shall we discover how the balance of forces will work out within the Catholic community. The ideas embodied in the White Paper will succeed only if at the end of the day, when the Assembly meets, there is a majority within the moderate Unionists, the Centre Party and the moderate Catholic representatives which is prepared to undertake power sharing and


make it work. That is the first base which must be reached.
What can the new Executive, once created, do to make the people of Northern Ireland think that it is a new regime and begin to turn away from the extremists and the old fears and suspicions which will take generations to die? How can we make the new Government look and sound different? One method is for the Government to give more aid to Northern Ireland and to allow the new Executive to undertake a massive programme of re-building and restructuring community life in Northern Ireland. Also, the new Government must be allowed to start meaningful cross-border communications between the Republic and Northern Ireland while accepting the total undertaking that no change will be made in Northern Ireland without the consent of the people there.
The sort of thing which it could do would be to set up a council for the development of the whole of the North-West of Ireland, including parts of Northern Ireland and of the Republic. Such a body should be set up and be composed of representatives of the Republic and of the North of Ireland Government and include members of the Brussels Commission—because that is where we must look for a considerable amount of Community aid. Under the umbrella of George Thomson and his Common Market regional policy, we could do something to combine areas of the North and of the South which have such common purposes and interests. We must show the people that the new Government can make cross-border contacts which are of real use to the people. We must show that the British Government will support such a move as part of a positive programme to restore the fabric of community and civilian life. If these things are achieved, some of the hurdles may be cleared. But I am still a little pessimistic.
The one final thing we must do is to look square in the face what will happen if the plan fails to overcome any one of these difficulties. What will happen if, at the end of the day, the IRA continues to fight, if they are still supported by the Catholic ghettos and if the UDA are still on the streets? My worry is that the White Paper will be the end of 

the road. It is the logical end point in terms of persuading the two communities to live together within the same geographical area.
I can see no solution to which the Government can turn if these new proposals fail. What worries me is that the only possible answer then will be the separation of the two communities. This will be cruel and disastrous. As the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) said, 40,000 people are not living in their homes in Belfast, because they have been driven out. It might be kinder to them in the end to separate the two communities so that there is a single, defensible Protestant area and a single, defensible Catholic area.
The scheme set out by the White Paper is the last chance for the two communities to live together and to begin, little by little, to trust each other. If it fails, I can see nothing for it, in terms of humanity, but a separation of the two communities so that people can live at peace with their neighbours. I hope that we shall never come to this pass, to the cruel and frightful policies of wholesale movement of populations which have led to recriminations all over the world. But if this last proposal fails, we shall be left to choose between the present horrors and something which, though bad, might be more supportable. That is why I still hope that this last chance will succeed.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) made a most constructive speech. He criticised the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) for saying that the White Paper was ambiguous. I think that the White Paper is somewhat obscurely written and to a certain extent this may have contributed to its widespread acceptance, on which I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The White Paper contains a skeletal set of proposals on which the flesh must be built.
I should like to refer to a topic which has been mentioned by earlier speakers, namely, the proposal to declare redundant the Governor and his lady. I regard it as a psychological blunder that this was written into the White Paper. I


am not the only hon. Member in this House who can testify to the wisdom and humanity of Lord Grey and I was glad to hear the Prime Minister's tribute to him. Soon after the Border poll which has resoundingly pronounced in favour of the British connection, the Government propose to remove the outward sign of the British connection in Northern Ireland, many of whose people set great store by the symbols of constitutional monarchy.
I do not see why, in advance of explaining how the prorogued Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland would be dissolved, it should be necessary at this stage to announce the abolition of the viceregal office. It is all very well to say that the HML's and Deputy-Lieutenants can maintain the link between the people of Northern Ireland and the Monarch. But that is not considered enough in Scotland where the Sovereign holds court and residence and in Wales with her special link with the heir to the Throne. Such a psychological error is bound to create the suspicion that Her Majesty's Government would like to approximate the institutions of Northern Ireland with those of the Irish Republic.
I hope that we shall not be vexed, as was the Irish Free State, with a wrangle about oaths. It is better that there should be no oath than an official oath which makes allegiance optional for those who will serve the Crown and the executive in Northern Ireland. It is better that there should be no oath than some kind of emasculated official oath. To weaken the Crown connection is to weaken the British connection.
We should steer clear of qualifying reiterated statements about what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian called a total undertaking, by saying that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as that is the will of her people. Such qualifications are unfortunate. Majorities can be softened up by the strain of seemingly unending terror. They can also be alienated by patronising chatter in the media such as "This is Ulster's last chance" or "Ulster must take it or leave it." That is the wrong approach if we want to put the White Paper over. There is implied the supercilious suggestion that if the natives do not stop squabbling, nanny will give notice.
Is it my right hon. Friend's intention that the Assembly should be brought swiftly into being? If necessary a separate Bill could be introduced so that the Assembly need not wait upon a definitive constitutional scheme. We read that the Assembly is to be elected for four years. What happens if the new executive cuts across the majority in the Assembly and there is no power for an earlier dissolution? In that situation will we revert to pure direct rule?
Have the Government in mind to include in the Bill provision that if Members should abstain from taking their seats and serving in the Assembly, they should give up their seats in favour of the runner-up at the election? That would be a salutary provision having regard to the time-honoured Irish custom of abstention after election to a legislature.
Will Eire voters, who might acquire some sort of residence on the eve of an election in Northern Ireland, be entitled to vote for the Assembly as they would be able to do in Great Britain for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or will the Northern Ireland seven-year restriction be preserved?
I shall conclude with a short comment on the Council of Ireland and the trans-border co-operation mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. It seems to have been forgotten that the Council of Ireland is one of the policy proposals of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Council of Ireland should not raise false fears or false hopes of a change of sovereignty. However, the membership of the EEC of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic means that the border will lose its economic significance, and it is important that the North and the South should work together to secure for the Irish regions their fair share of Community aid. There should be economic co-operation and co-operation in the development of tourism, for example in the region embracing the great city of Derry and its hinterland in the lovely county of Donegal.
Some years ago Mr. Brian Lenihan, who is now the Foreign Minister of the Republic, was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as looking back nostalgically to the last century when projects of a wider devolution throughout the British


Isles were canvassed although not realised. Whatever dreams are dreamed of Ireland, North and South, the practical and peaceful course seems to be not that of a united Ireland but of a united Northern Ireland, within a more united British Isles. There are then three dimensions: the British dimension—that is, the dimension of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the Irish dimension to be expressed through the Council of Ireland or whatever common organs may be set up between the two sovereign Governments, and the third dimension—namely, Europe.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I shall not start my speech, like the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) by lamenting the departure of the Governor of Northern Ireland. I lament other much more important omissions from the White Paper, such as the ending of detention without trial and its one-sided application; the legalisation of Sinn Fein and the Republican clubs so that they can fight elections; the repeal of emotive legislation, such as the Flags and Emblems Act, which forbids the flying of the tricolour and continues to divide the community of Northern Ireland; and, most important of all but curiously an item that has so far escaped the notice of Government hon. Members, a more specific commitment to industrial growth and the curing of unemployment.
On the other hand, I regret the presence in the White Paper of an even more emphatic assertion of sovereignty by Westminster over Northern Ireland, which, if it is to endure on any basis other than strictly purposeful, taking Northern Ireland in a new direction and on a short term, strikes me as wholly unreal. I deplore, therefore, the inclusion in the White Paper of paragraph 32.
The most serious flaw in the White Paper is that in practice, as the Economist observed last week, it is a framework which will need to be operated by the same people who have brought Ulster to its present condition. Some of those people were present on the Panorama programme on Monday night. They were either prepared to exploit the White Paper's ambiguous phrasing or pledged to wreck it.
I acknowledge the difficulties that faced those who drafted the White Paper, but they are not without responsibility for its ambiguity and for its vague areas. I understand the basic requirements that confronted them. They had to produce a White Paper that would restore peace. Any modus vivendi which can be achieved through any such proposals now before the House would necessarily have to be an interim arrangement, but an arrangement which would pave the way. I also understand that it had to satisfy the people of this country. I firmly believe that it has been designed to prepare the ground for a long-term policy objective which will solve the Irish problem once and for all.
I am in no doubt that that is what the majority of the people of this country look to the Government to do. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) in his praise of the British people. They have behaved in a manner that could not be emulated by any other people anywhere in the world. I regard them as the most tolerant people who have ever graced the face of the earth. Yet even their tolerance and patience must now be running down. They will be looking to the Government to eliminate those sources of infection which have poisoned Anglo-Irish relations for centuries and to disengage, so far as is practical, from Irish affairs.
Another basic requirement of the White Paper was that it should meet with the approval, no matter how tacit, of Dublin.
I suppose that what all of us also look to the White Paper to provide—and at this point we must acknowledge that we are asking the almost impossible of the authors, within the compromises inseparable from any constitutional statement drafted by one country for another—is a peaceful path towards a solution of the Irish problem.
I believe that the path to such a peaceful solution lies through the probing and exploration of two policy areas in particular. The first is exactly how power will be shared between the two communities. The second is over how wide or how narrow a field the new Council will operate. The Government will doubtless justify their postponement of decisions on these crucial issues on the ground that they must be taken by those who will


have to work the new arrangements—in other words, through consent.
But that pre-requisite must not be used as an evasion by the Government of the need to promote policies which are conducive to the fulfilment of this aim. Consent is not a fortuitous happening or a neutral concept. It must be worked for, encouraged and cultivated. I am tempted to ask at this stage whether it is not more likely to come from the moderates, from those who will work in this empirical way.
Would not the moderates stand a better chance of election if the White Paper were a little more specific about power sharing and the Council of Ireland? Would this not also have compelled a more meaningful response from Dublin? After all, there can be no retreat from either, and in the absence of guidelines the extremists will surely supply the detail, as we saw in Panorama. In this way they will play on the fears of electors. Meanwhile, Dublin will only back away more and more from any such commitment to a Council of Ireland and what may lie behind.
If it is argued that the White Paper had to be studiously non-committal about the form and function of a Council of Ireland, I reply that we can still properly urge that it should ultimately be given more positive content. Although it may initially be invested with economic responsibility, we must see that it also has a built-in capacity to extend the range and degree of its responsibilities into other areas.
This is why I was so heartened by the Prime Minister's speech and especially by his pledge that no subjects will be excluded from the Council of Ireland. I readily acknowledge the priority which must be given to those items that he specified. Later, when the legislation is before the House, we shall be anxious to take them up and add to them.
But there is one that I want to nominate right now in order to stimulate those who are really concerned for the advance of Ireland, and especially for the success of the Council, in order to get them working in this positive direction towards integration and joint study and eventually to mutual benefit—first of all at the economic level, but later on, we shall hope, at the political level.
My first recommendation is that the Government should build a motorway from Belfast to Dublin. I know that it would cost many millions of pounds, but we have already spent that amount in Northern Ireland and will go on spending there. Steps like that would integrate the communities in Ireland.
I was also heartened to hear the Prime Minister say that representatives of Dublin and Northern Ireland will meet within the Council on the basis of the present status of Northern Ireland, and also of the possibility of a change in that status. That is surely the right approach. As The Observer said on Sunday:
Creation of the Council of Ireland is the new dimension in which Ulster is being encouraged to work out its salvation.
That is why I believe that any plea, such as we heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), on behalf of increased representation at Westminster must run counter to the underlying intent of the White Paper.
From Harold Wilson's 15-year plan to Edward Heath's slow disengagement White Paper there must now be very few Members of this House who wish any longer to hang on in Ireland. Most of us in this House, like most of the British people, will wish to make a success of the interim arrangements contained in the White Paper so that we shall be all the better placed to proceed to a final settlement.
I am not wholly convinced that the White Paper is sufficient. What I am convinced of, however, is that we shall make a success of these interim arrangements only if this House is concerned to deepen the positive content of the White Paper, identify its growth points, nurture them and help bring them to maturity.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I have listened with great interest to practically all the speeches made so far in the debate. Like all others who have spoken, I shall give my views honestly and sincerely. I hope that I shall be constructive and not destructive about the White Paper and the legislation that is to follow.
I believe that the White Paper can neither be fully accepted nor fully rejected. To me, many of its proposals are


unacceptable and many are tolerable. I wholeheartedly support three items in it because on previous occasions I have myself proposed that they should be brought into effect. These are the amendment of the Ireland Act 1949, the Council of Ireland and the Bill of Rights.
Amendment of the 1949 Act is long overdue. I supported and did my best for the Bill, presented in the House some time ago, designed to make the one change necessary—the substitution for the word "Parliament" of the word "people". I am delighted that at long last the Government have recognised that this is the right course of action.
It is not generally known that if the legislative assembly known as the Stormont Parliament had, by some fluke, had a majority so minded, it had the power to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom even though it might have been against the wishes of the majority of the people. I am delighted that at long last the decision to remain in or opt out of the United Kingdom is to be placed firmly and squarely on the people of Northern Ireland.
Secondly, in considering the setting up of the Council of Ireland, while I know the bones of contention among many people, my firm view is that it is far better to talk round the table than to shoot at each other from behind the border.
The legislation dealing with the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Human Rights is necessary to ensure that all sections of the community obtain their rights within that part of the United Kingdom in which they reside:
(a) the right to freedom within the law, including freedom to advance any political or constitutional cause by non-violent means;
(b) the right to protection under the law, so that freedom is not taken away or diminished by violence, oppression or intimidation by others; and
(c) the right to equality of benefit and opportunity, so that society will deal in an equitable and even-handed way as between one citizen and another, without bias or prejudice.
Those are the conditions laid down on page 24 of the White Paper in Part 4— "A Charter of Human Rights".
As I have said, many of the proposals in the White Paper are unacceptable; many are tolerable. I have the highest regard for the Secretary of State's integrity,

his tolerance and his hard work and endeavour on behalf of Northern Ireland. At the same time he is placed in a very difficult position because, under the White Paper and the legislation which will follow, he is given terriffic powers. If the legislation follows the pattern laid down in the White Paper, the Secretary of State could become a modern Dick Turpin, and if he succeeds in implementing such legislation he will certainly have made Dick Turpin look like the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The proposed new Assembly in Northern Ireland is like a pub with no bar. No clear definition of powers has been given although certain things have been conferred, on conditions. The thinking behind the White Paper in this respect is simply that we should wait and see who is elected to that body.
In looking at the number and composition of the various parties likely to contest the forthcoming election in Northern Ireland, I think that the Secretary of State is certainly keeping his options open. The parties likely to contest the election are numerous: the Unionist Party, to which I belong; the United Loyalist Action Group; the Alliance Party; the Labour Party; the Social Democrat and Labour Party; the Nationalist Party; Sinn Fein, perhaps, in some colour; and many other smaller groups. Personally I welcome an election as it is the only way of finding out who represents whom in Northern Ireland. The present position is intolerable. No country and no part of any country can hope to flourish or even survive in a vacuum.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) in his opening speech, reminded the House of our position regarding the Order in Council, and there is no time available to discuss it fully in this House. He also touched on the thorny question of representation in this House—namely, the number of hon. Members. I believe honestly and sincerely that the number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland is totally inadequate and not commensurate with the powers held by this Government. The new proposals state that the number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland at Westminster should remain the same. I believe it is a fact accepted by all political parties and by the people of the United Kingdom that there can be no taxation without representation. I am


firmly convinced that even under the old system Northern Ireland was under-represented at Westminster.
Let me turn for a moment to the composition of the Executive. To my mind this is one of the thorny problems set out in the White Paper. There is a vague reference to the barriers which will be placed in the way of anyone who would act against the State. I should like to ask the Secretary of State or the Minister who is acting on his behalf whether persons acting against the State will be included in the Executive. If so, it will not be necessary to use against the walls of Stormont the tactics which were used to bring down the walls of Jericho. The only criterion by which one can judge this position is whether the Secretary of State himself would act in an executive such as I have already mentioned: that is, an executive containing members who are themselves out to destroy the very State they represent.
I turn now to another very thorny problem, that of the Governor. We have in this country a high regard for Her Majesty the Queen, and the Governor in Northern Ireland has been the Queen's representative. In Scotland there is the residence of the Queen which she occupies at various times of the year. In Wales there is the connection with the Throne through the Prince of Wales. But now we are told that the position of Governor is to be abolished. I should like to add my own to the compliments already paid to the Governor, Lord Grey, and his wife. I have met him on many occasions and I believe that he is the finest Governor who ever graced Stormont Castle. I say that without reserva-tion. I hope that there will continue to be some form of Queen's representative in Northern Ireland because, if there is not, many people will think that the British Government do not want us any longer.
I turn now to another thorny problem, that of the franchise. Under the proposals the franchise will be reserved to the Westminster Parliament. I should like clear definitions to be given with regard to the franchise, because under the Northern Ireland system people from the Republic of Ireland have to have a seven-year qualification before they can vote in the Northern Ireland election and a three-month qualification is necessary

before they can vote in a Westminster election. I am firmly convinced—I do not think anyone can argue this point— that it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said that full parliamentary power has been given to Stormont when the franchise is being withheld and exercised separately in this House. That is the difference between a parliament and an assembly.
Another thorny problem is how the consent of the people will be determined with regard to the constitutional position. I am firmly convinced that the plebiscites which have been proposed will have to be used at some stage in the future, but I am also firmly convinced that to hold plebiscites at short intervals would be a disaster, because this would only keep the pot on the boil and would not allow people to settle down and get on with the normal business of government. My suggestion is that no plebiscite on the border should be held until at least two-thirds of the Assembly request it. That would be a safeguard against having plebiscites at very short intervals.
I shall take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and conclude my speech by referring finally to the Royal Commission on the Constitution. This has been in being for a very long time. It was first announced in another place during the Gracious Speech of 1968. Since then deliberations have taken place and I have asked on numerous occasions when this report would be available. I thought that it would be available last year. At long last the Prime Minister said that we were to have it this year.
I see the point made by the Prime Minister about representation of Northern Ireland in this House and the fact that he would rather wait until he sees what the Royal Commission proposes. If the Royal Commission says that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should have a certain representation I would abide by that decision. I am sure that everyone in Northern Ireland would do the same.
This White Paper can neither be accepted nor rejected in total. I advise the House that it is the basis on which the future of Northern Ireland can be built. However, I warn the Secretary of State that if he is adamant that no amendments can be made to the subsequent legislation, the whole edifice on which we hope to


build the future of Northern Ireland will fall down. I am firmly convinced that if good sense prevails between the people of Northern Ireland and their leaders and the Secretary of State and if firm proposals and guarantees can be given, with a reasonable amount of compromise on both sides, the White Paper will have a chance.
On the other hand, if we meet a stone wall, with no concessions, we will run into trouble. I shall not vote to reject this White Paper. I shall try to make it work. I have lived all my life in Northern Ireland. I have a family and a business there. I have a stake in the country. Every right-thinking person will try to bring something out of the present chaos. I hope that wise counsels will prevail, not only in Northern Ireland but within the Cabinet and among all those who have to take these decisions. Despite any political party, the best interests of Northern Ireland must be paramount so that we can look forward to a period of peace and prosperity.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: In a debate in which the majority of speakers have been either Ulstermen or descendants of Irish immigrants to Great Britain, or participants in the long-standing discussions we have had in this House on Ireland, it may be thought that as an Englishman I should be a little hesitant to have the cheek to table an amendment to the Government motion to approve the White Paper. I make no apology for having tabled that amendment or for striking what will be the first seriously discordant note to enter the debate.
I have travelled around the world a fair amount since I became a Member of Parliament. I did a considerable amount of travelling when I was in the Royal Navy. When I read the history of this country I find many things in the long and chequered colonial history of Great Britain of which I am entirely proud. But when I look at the long and tragic entanglement of this country with Ireland I have to admit that there is very little in which I can take pride as a citizen of Great Britain.
We have tried to solve the problem created by us in Northern Ireland in a vast manner of ways ranging from

attempts at bloody suppression to integration and now the White Paper. In all those previous attempts, and I believe in this present one, we have met and will meet failure in our efforts to bring peace and prosperity to Northern Ireland. The current attempt, like the others before it, is based upon a fallacy, upon the myth that Britain can solve the problems of Ireland.
It is my contention that the problems of Ireland can be solved only by the people of Ireland as a whole. There is one thing in which I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who spoke from the Front Bench on this side of the House, and that is his tribute to the Army. I believe it is faced with an intolerable task that we have imposed on it. It has been subjected to abuse and criticism both in Northern Ireland and in the Westminster Parliament which on many occasions has been grossly unfair.
Anyone who has served in any of the forces will understand the leadership and the discipline that is vital to the exercise of restraint when British Service men are faced with cold-blooded, brutal murder in carrying out their duties on behalf of this country, and the revulsion and anger that those brave men must feel when they see their comrades brutally and cowardly maimed and murdered in Northern Ireland in carrying out the mistaken policies of this Parliament.
We need to understand also the anger and the growing sense of frustration that the British people are beginning to allow to manifest itself in their statements and arguments throughout the country. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South that I entirely agree with what he has said: that we cannot pull out the British Army, that we must stand firm and say to our people that that cannot happen yet, that the time for it has not yet arrived and that certain political decisions must be taken before we get to that stage.
I believe that this debate on Northern Ireland is a most fundamental one. What are we to do in the new situation that has followed the collapse of the Stormont Parliament and the collapse of the existing constitution in Northern Ireland? I believe that new opportunities are now


open to us all. I do not believe that we are bound by commitments given either in 1969 by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or by previous Governments concerning the future of Northern Ireland. I feel that those commitments have been eroded away in blood in the last three years and that we now have an opportunity of starting again and taking a fresh look at our approach.
In his opening speech the Prime Minister said that those who oppose the White Paper must take very careful thought about the consequences of their opposition. That has been said in other places at which I have been present when this subject of Northern Ireland has been debated—that we must all be mindful that lives of human beings are at risk and that every word we utter will be listened to and acted upon in Ireland.
All I would say to that is that Gladstone, Attlee, Wilson and now Heath are issuing the same statements as they issued when they were following mistaken policies in the past, and those mistaken policies have been responsible for the blood that has already flowed. So nothing I can say is going in any way to produce any more terrible difficulties than did anything those leaders have said in the past. I believe the White Paper will be a repeat of the follies of the past because, as is said in paragraph 32, we shall repeat the guarantee that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom so long as a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish it. I believe it is that guarantee which has been the stumbling block to real unity, real progress and real peace in that troubled isle of Ireland.
I want to give the House three reasons why I feel that that guarantee is unacceptable. It is unacceptable, first of all, because it fails to take any account of the British dimension. We hear a lot about the Irish dimension but very little about the British dimension. I believe the only people who can decide the future boundaries of the United Kingdom is a majority of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The British people have been deliberately excluded by the Government from taking any part in that decision. When this House agreed to the legislation for the border poll, some of us pleaded with the Government to extend to the British

electorate the opportunity of expressing an opinion on the future relationship of Northern Ireland with Great Britain. It was refused.
No guarantee of this nature given without the express consent of the British people as a whole can be sacrosanct. Some future Westminster Parliament prepared to heed the wishes of the British people may well remove that guarantee. I believe that that needs to be stated and to be understood in all the discussions on the future constitutional relationship of Northern Ireland with Great Britain, wherever they take place. That is my first reason for being against the so-called guarantee.
I am against it, secondly, because I believe it to be a fraud upon the minority population in Northern Ireland. I differ from those of my hon. Friends who say that they agree with the White Paper because it can lead to the unity of Ireland. I do not accept that as being based upon reality. It is a delusion, in my judgment. We can mess about with the new Assembly of Northern Ireland, we can fiddle around with various methods of electing representatives to that Assembly, and we can have all the other discussions on policing, on Diplock and on all the other matters which have been and will be mentioned in this debate. But the one cold fact remains. The very border of Northern Ireland as at present constituted was designed to ensure the permanent numerical superiority of those who wished to retain the link with the United Kingdom. I believe that it is a fraud upon the minority because it offers hope without the chance of fulfilment.
My third reason for being against paragraph 32 of the White Paper and the guarantee is my belief that it will act as a prop for the majority population in Northern Ireland. It is a straw which they will grasp, as they have grasped it over the past 50 years. It destroys the impetus and the desire which many people hoped to see emerge from the other proposals in the White Paper. It destroys the desire to co-operate with the Republic of Ireland. It destroys the desire because it destroys the necessity for co-operation.
Whatever the all-Ireland institution may be, I do not believe that it will work so long as the people of the majority in


Northern Ireland have this so-called guarantee as a prop on which they hope they can lean. That is my third reason for being against the White Paper and bitterly opposed to that section of it which asks us to re-enact that guarantee.
All that the White Paper does and all that it is capable of doing is to put the lid back on the pot in Northern Ireland. All that it will do is to transfer the crisis of decision that we face to another Parliament and another generation. I have no doubt that this Parliament will mistakenly accept the White Paper. But all the crisis and all the bloodshed that we see will surely come again in another generation. Instead of our sons going with the British Army to Ulster, our grandsons will be sent there, because we intend to re-enact the fatal folly of a guarantee that says it is only the majority in Northern Ireland who can determine the future boundaries of the United Kingdom and of Ireland itself.
In the end, either now or at some future time in the history of our two countries, we shall be forced to recognise the fundamental reality that it is only the Irish in the North and the South who will solve their own historic problems. I believe that it will be far better if we face the facts of geography and history now rather than baulk away from them.
I do not believe that Britain has any place at all in Ireland, either as a mediator or as a constitutional prop. The only future for this country and for Ireland lies in friendship based upon some link other than unity as nations. We must recognise the realities of the situation, and for that reason I hope that the Government will listen to at least one plea of the Opposition Front Bench. I go so far as to support the election of the Assembly, but no further. If any legislation comes before this House which incorporates the fatal guarantee that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom I for one shall be implacably opposed to it, and I hope that many of my hon. Friends will join me in my opposition.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) will forgive me if I do not follow him along the line of his argument.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) criticised the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) who emphasised the ambiguity in the White Paper which will make it difficult for people to stand for election and difficult for those who vote to know what they are voting about.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) raised the question of education and its desegregation. The hon. Member for Thurrock did not believe that that would help to solve the problem in Northern Ireland, and he gave as one reason for his view the geography of certain areas.
I believe that desegregation in education would go some way towards curing the dreadful gulf which exists between the two communities in many parts of Northern Ireland. There are areas in which desegregation could not work physically, and obviously Roman Catholic schools would continue to exist in such areas, but in the lower echelons of education it would be a good thing and would, over a generation or so, begin to break down the barriers which have existed for far too long.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone also raised the question of the continued presence of the British Army in Northern Ireland. I join others in undivided and complete praise of the efforts of the British Army. Since it has been in Northern Ireland it has been asked to do an almost impossible job, but it has done it. It has had odium heaped upon it from both sides, and that is regrettable because there is no better army in the world.
My right hon. Friend spoke about setting a term for the removal of the British Army from Northern Ireland, and I think that that must be done. We want to get back to proper, civilian democratic government. There is no doubt that at the moment the Army is the instrument of government, as seen by many people in Northern Ireland, and the sooner we can get away from that and get back to a civilian administration in its entirety the better it will be for the people there.
I praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Front Bench colleagues for their patience in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has shown


tremendous integrity, hard work and service to the extent that few others, if any, could have shown, but he knows that I disagree with what the Government have done, and my position today is no different from what it was about a year ago.
The constitutional proposals in the White Paper are an unfortunate compromise which panders to the unconstitutional aspirations of a section of the minority community in Northern Ireland which seeks, by violence and other detestable means, to drive the British Government to surrender an integral part of the United Kingdom and to cede it to the Republic of Ireland.
The political stability of Northern Ireland has been severely undermined not only by the actions of the party opposite when in power but also by the actions of the present Government since we have been in power. This was exacerbated 12 months ago by the prorogation of Stormont and, I believe, further weakened by the proposals we are debating today.
My right hon. and hon. Friends never gave the parliamentary reforms which were being brought in by the Unionist Government at Stormont a chance to work. Instead they abolished a democratically elected Parliament which, despite a number of shortcomings which I quite willingly concede, had acted as a safety valve for the expression of opinions by all the people in Northern Ireland. Since direct rule we have heard that the number of explosions has increased, the number of killings has increased and incidents of violence have increased quite dramatically. By removing the local democratic assembly, direct rule has put politics on to the street and the majority law-abiding community has been driven to believe that it must now rely on its own resources for its defence.
No one negotiated with the Provisional IRA before that fatal March of 1972, there was no Vanguard before March 1972, there was no UDA before March 1972 and no UVF before March 1972. and the British Army was not caught between the crossfire of two communities.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Member tell the House who proscribed the UVF? Was it not William Craig, and

was it not the first organisation to be proscribed?

Mr. Winterton: It was not active on any noticeable or effective scale. I think that deals with that intervention.
When he opened the debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister doubted the loyalty of some of those who call themselves Loyalists in Ulster today. He took exception to that insinuation because Northern Ireland and her people were priceless assets to us in the battle of the North Atlantic in the last war, while Southern Ireland was a sanctuary for hostile submarines. If not entirely sold on the bestiality of Adolph Hitler and his regime, they were not noticeably hostile to it. Who are our friends, the Loyalists of Ulster or the Republicans whose aspirations are fed by the abolition of Stormont. proportional representation and the opportunity to abuse power sharing which forms an important part of the White Paper? I shall not be a party to letting down our proven friends in the Six Counties because, whether my hon. Friends like to admit it or not this is precisely the feeling held by very many people in Ulster today and it is reflected daily in the heavy mail which I get from Ulster.

Mr. Cormack: Does the hon. Member think that this inflammatory nonsense is calculated to help the situation? Does he suggest that all who fought loyally in the last war were Protestants?

Mr. Winterton: No, they certainly were not, but I believe that people in Northern Ireland look to this House to support them at this time. I stand up to show that I support them in times of trial and great problems. They stood by the United Kingdom.
Perhaps there are some people— possibly the great majority of those in this House—who will look to the White Paper as the answer to the desperate problems of Northern Ireland. Some people in Ulster are so bruised and battered by violence and devastation that they will snatch at any straw because they are almost past caring. I will not go along with that opinion but I consider that the proposals which we are considering could and should form the basis of negotiations. Some of these proposals as they stand require clarification. Perhaps we will get this clarification before the end of the


debate tomorrow night. Some of the other proposals are unworkable.
Let me deal with one or two points. How will the Executive be chosen? The success of the Assembly, which will be a very important part of the proposals, depends upon agreement being reached by the elected members of the Assembly and the Secretary of State. This is surely a crucial issue and we are not at present exactly sure what the position is to be.
My second point is about power sharing. How can it work, when—this is obviously hypothetical at this stage— a small minority in the Assembly could refuse to work in the Assembly in the context of the United Kingdom?
Thirdly, a number of my hon. Friends have raised the question of the Governorship of Northern Ireland. I believe that the Governorship should remain, and I hope that my right hon. Friend can find a way of achieving this, because it is a positive link with the Crown and a positive symbol of sovereignty for the majority of the people of the Province. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but he would not be a satisfactory replacement for the Governor. Wales has the Prince of Wales and Scotland has a number of Royal residences at which Her Majesty stays on a number of occasions during the year. The people of Ulster need to have a Governor.

Mr. McNamara: They have Terry O'Neill.

Mr. Winterton: If these proposals are accepted, the elections must be held as soon as possible—preferably before the local government elections, which should be postponed. This view was reflected by hon. Members on the Opposition side.
The proposals relating to the Council of Ireland can be successful only if Eire recognises the sovereignty of the Parliament at Westminster and the authority of Ulster's regional parliament. An All-Ireland Council must not involve interference by either part in the internal domestic affairs of the other. It should merely concern itself, particularly initially, with matters of mutual interest on the basis of absolute equality. If this council were formed,

it would be breaking new ground and perhaps the two parts of Ireland could begin to work together, although as separate entities.
My right hon. Friends have, I regret to say, opposed any increase in Ulster representation in this House. If even a marginal increase had been proposed, the White Paper as a whole would have been much more palatable to many more people. If there were an increase in representation, the activties of the Secretary of State would then be scrutinised by more than 12 hon. Members, who are very much overworked.

Mr. Fitt: Thank you very much.

Mr. Winterton: I am pleased to pass that credit to Ulster Members on both sides of the House.
I wish finally to refer to internal security. If we are serious about devolution of power, internal security should be the responsibility of the Assembly in Northern Ireland. The police should be the responsibility, perhaps, of a committee of the Assembly with local watch committees, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone. These watch committees would be composed of local government elected representatives. This would ensure representation from all communities. They could not then be open to the trendy accusation of being biased towards the establishment.
It is not for me as an English Member of Parliament to harangue the citizens of Ulster as to the merits or demerits of the White Paper, but what I can say, as I said a little earlier, is that I can assure the people of Ulster that their case is heard in this House and that there are some people in this House who are sympathetic to their cause. I have expressed in my short address tonight my concern about the White Paper. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland themselves and their elected representatives to decide whether the proposals in my right hon. Friend's White Paper give the opportunity for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, not just in the short term but in the long term as well, which is surely the objective on which we should set our sights.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am moved to intervene at this stage mainly by the last two speeches. I think that they were completely unnecessary at this stage of the debate. I am not talking only about the debate here this evening. I am talking of the debate which has lasted, certainly in this Chamber, for nearly three years. For those of us who have attended most of the debate it has been a continuous process, and some of us have not only tried to follow it right the way through but in between times we have also visited, as often as we could at least, the people who are directly concerned in Northern Ireland. We have discussed the problems with people in this country and wherever else discussion has been necessary to try to maintain some kind of continuity of the debate. I see this White Paper as part of a debate which has lasted some three and a half years.
I see the last two contributions as an attempt, perhaps not a deliberate attempt, at lifting this part of the debate out of context and as taking it by itself, and those speeches, which might have been relevant six months ago or nine months ago, are certainly not helpful at this stage. Those of us who have been continually in the process of the debate during the last three years or so, and assuming that we understand all that has gone before, ought now to be starting with the White Paper. I do not think it is necessary to go back over too much of the ground, or to score party points, at which some attempt has been made in the debate tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) knows I have a great deal of respect for his views, and I respect his integrity and I know how deeply and sincerely he feels about the views that he has expressed tonight, but I find them certainly not practical. They may well be attractive, but they are not practical. They may be premature, but they are certainly not in the context of this part of the debate which has gone on for about three years. What he is saying is a very popular point of view, I suppose. One might get a majority in the country if one took the same sort of line of argument about capital punishment. What my hon. Friend is saying is

virtually "Let us pull out and let them at it."
There is a contradiction in what my hon. Friend says. He says he does not feel very proud of Britain's record in that part of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that many of us share that sentiment; but, having said that, if we are ashamed of our part in that area of the United Kingdom, have we not now a responsibility to admit the errors we have made, to say that it is up to us to leave it in such a condition that it can be put right, and not to walk away and leave it?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure my hon. Friend does not want to misrepresent what I said. I went out of my way specifically to say that it would be wrong —and I gave reasons why it would be wrong—to withdraw the British Army at this stage. Let me just remind him that the whole structure of my argument is based upon the fact that we are being asked to repeat the follies of the past by re-enacting a so-called guarantee that there is a majority in Northern Ireland which can determine the future of Northern Ireland and of Great Britain.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful for that intervention because I agree basically with my hon. Friend's sentiment about paragraph 32, although for different reasons.
Whether or not my hon. Friend likes it—this is what he was saying—we cannot now say that we ought to have a referendum, some kind of plebiscite in this part of the United Kingdom, to determine what shall be the borders. In present circumstances, one could almost be assured, in the state of the world as it exists and concerning parts in which British soldiers have been involved, of a majority which would say "We can lop off that part and let them get on with it." We would be committing the North and the South to civil war. That is not a responsible attitude.
I am not saying that, in the event of the White Paper and whatever ensues from it failing, we might not reach the position my hon. Friend has mentioned. But he is being at least premature and certainly out of context with the discussion as it has taken place over the past two or three years.
I give the White Paper a reserved welcome. I do not want to be euphoric about it. My views are well known. I do not see any permanent, ultimate solution outside the reunification of the 32 counties in Ireland; but I do not see that as an overnight or an immediate solution. If I had any doubt about it, the recent election in Eire—I followed the campaign closely—backs up the point of view that there is no demand for immediate reunification. There is a desire for ultimate reunification and a desire to work with the northern part of the country towards that situation.
It would be churlish of me to oppose the White Paper. It contains many of the things for which I have been arguing in the Chamber for almost three years. I was supporting a "bill of rights" when both sides of this Chamber and of another place rejected it, mainly because it contained a proposal for proportional representation. I tried last year to introduce a Bill on just that point—proportional representation. I did not get much support.
Now that the Government have accepted at least the basic principles of PR without reservation, although I still have criticisms of the charter in the White Paper and shall say so at the appropriate time, and, having abolished the oath— something else that I have argued about —they ought to go the whole hog and abolish it for the new Assembly, for it is not a sovereign body but only like a county council, and members of the Camden Borough Council and Mid-Bucks Council do not take the oath—

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman on a point of fact? If he studies the White Paper, he will see that the oath has been abolished.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful for that information. I did not get the impression that it had been totally abolished. I thought that something would be substituted for different parts of the Assembly or the Executive. If the Government are saying that it is abolished completely, I am even happier.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In fact, as I understand it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) is trying loyally to make his speech within his time limitation. I hope that interruptions will be reduced to the minimum.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall be brief. As I understand the White Paper, the only people required to take an oath will be the members of the Executive, and they will have to take an oath, even if they are Republican in sympathy, as to their allegiance to the guarantee that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stallard: I shall not follow up my hon. Friend's point on that matter.
I believe that it will be a cleverly drafted Bill, and the Secretary of State and his Ministers are to be congratulated. It is almost as though they have said: "We will set out to produce something that displeases everybody, and that way maybe we have a chance of getting it right." If that was their thinking they have succeeded. It could be described as a kind of curate's egg of a Bill. Someone has said it is like redecorating a house that ought to have been demolished years ago. There are many other such comments that will be made about it. But, whatever we think about it at this stage, the alternative is too terrible to contemplate, and for that reason I give it a reserved welcome.
In reading the White Paper I was struck by what appears to be a number of concessions in principle. These worry me, and they will certainly worry those in the minority in the Six Counties who will want to know what they are being let in for. One of the biggest disappointments in the White Paper is the reference to Diplock and to the continuation of internment, albeit under a different name. Call it detention, but it will be interpreted by the minority population as continuation of internment. I say categorically that whatever form it takes, I shall be consistent in opposing the continuation of internment or any form of imprisonment without trial in the Six Counties.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State admitted in a broadcast recently that he had made mistakes. That was a courageous statement. We have all made mistakes over the past few years. We have all taken up attitudes we wished


later we had never taken up, and some things are better left not said. I believe that one of his biggest mistakes was his failure to grasp the opportunity to end internment and to release the internees. Such opportunities have been presented on a number of occasions in the past few years, particularly after "Operation Motorman". I have opposed the Secretary of State on this, and if he carries on as suggested in the White Paper I give notice that I will continue to oppose him.
The White Paper does not go into enough detail about policing. I will not develop that theme because my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) made an excellent contribution and particularly mentioned the difficulty of policing. He spoke from first-hand experience, and I could follow every detail although I am not from the Six Counties, but I am conversant with the situation from speaking to thousands of people who live there and I was thus able to follow his reasoning and understand the position.
Perhaps the aim should be to develop the London "bobby" concept in the new policing arrangements, and that could be a target towards which to work. That may be an unfortunate choice of phrase to talk about a target in the context of the Six Counties, but if that, or something like it, could be the aim it might be in the right direction.
I am delighted about proportional representation but I am concerned as to how it will operate in the Assembly. Even with proportional representation I have no doubt that there will be a Unionist majority. If decisions in the Assembly are taken on a straight vote, we shall be back again to where we were before. Although the minority will have representatives in the Assembly, the minority will have no power. If we are serious about power sharing in the Assembly we must consider the voting pattern of the Assembly.
I am disappointed in the part of the White Paper that deals with the economic programme. There is insufficient urgentcy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wands-worth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) asked searching questions about unemployment in the Six Counties, and the figures given to him show that there is still massive unemployment in the deprived areas.

Insufficient attention has been paid in the White Paper and elsewhere to this immediate problem.
I ask the Secretary of State to give further thought to a suggestion I made last year for a crash programme on training and economic aid to the deprived areas. A tremendous amount of rebuilding will have to be done for which craftsmen will be needed. Should not we now be preparing the people who will take on this positive and creative construction? Should not we be thinking about funnelling economic aid into the deprived areas at the same time as we train the craftsmen to do the jobs of the future?

9.17 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I can tell the hon. Member for St. Pan-eras, North (Mr. Stallard) that the industrial training programme in Northern Ireland is far better than that in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is one of the many matters of which we in Ulster can be proud.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) introduced into the debate a note of realism. Until she made her speech the debate sounded like an Oxbridge Union debate. The hon. Lady spoke about the reality of the situation envisaged in the new Assembly. It was an education to me to see the look of disbelief on the faces of right hon. and hon. Members on the two Front Benches when she spoke. The hon. Lady is right. The Assembly is merely a consultative assembly—the very idea that the White Paper rejects. That is simply one of the contradictions in the White Paper.
According to the Government's proposals, if the democratically elected members of the Assembly behave themselves, as good boys or girls they will from time to time be granted more devolved power, but the Secretary of State will become and remain supreme as the combined Governor, Commander-in-Chief and political Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Rev. Ian Paisley rose—

Mr. Kilfedder: As my time is extremely limited, I cannot give way to my hon. Friend, much as I should like to do so.
The Prime Minister quoted figures of the financial assistance given to Northern


Ireland by the Government. I accept that the Government are being generous, but it must be remembered that money is needed to rebuild industries and homes that have been destroyed by the IRA and to pay compensation to people who have been bereaved and mutilated. I join the Prime Minister in praising the young soldiers who, gallantly and with restraint, are helping to preserve law and order. Whether it is a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, a Nationalist or a Loyalist who breaks the law, I want to see law preserved. And nobody can point a ringer at the Unionist Party because we have always advocated the restoration of law and order.
The Prime Minister referred with some pride to his relations with Mr. Lynch when he was Prime Minister of the Repubiic. But what happened to the famous telegram which the Prime Minister sent to Mr. Lynch telling him to mind his own business, that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and that he had no right to intervene? Times have changed and this Government's policies have changed from time to time. I looked for the 1970 Conservative manifesto to find out what was then said about Northern Ireland. I recollect that various Conservative Ministers over the years have visited Northern Ireland and praised the Stormont Government for the work they were doing in Northern Ireland.
I should like to pay tribute to the civil servants who drafted the White Paper. The eloquence of its language is surpassed only by the deviousness of its intentions. I accept that it may contain some good ideas, but the Government pride themselves on pursuing a biparti-sian policy in Northern Ireland. This is a euphemistic way of explaining what they are really doing—that is, adopting Labour Party policy on Northern Ireland. Indeed, the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said that the principles expounded by the Labour Party form the basis of the White Paper, and that is the policy which is presented to the people of Northern Ireland.
In ordinary times the White Paper would be rejected out of hand, but the Secretary of State is banking on the war-weariness of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland. After four years of

a cruel IRA terrorist campaign, he believes that they have been softened up to accept virtually any terms. The Prime Minister said that he had seen compelling evidence that the vast majority in Northern Ireland want the proposals to work.
A famous author from Ireland, Dean Swift, said about an earlier imposition of the Westminster Government two centuries ago, when the spirits of the Irish people were at a low ebb:
When Esau came fainting from the field at the point of death, it is no wonder that he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
Swift was talking then about the
accursed coin of Wood's halfpence foisted on the Irish people.
He might easily have been describing the hoped-for reaction to the White Paper. The White Paper, however, is the product of four years of Irish Republicanism and Republican terrorism. The document is a surrender to the IRA which has murdered, mutilated and destroyed throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. The IRA has achieved one of its aims, namely, the abolition of the Stormont Parliament. This has happened despite assurances that have been given by some of my right hon. Friends in past years.
We are now urged to accept the White Paper. We are told that if we do not do so we shall be branded as irresponsible. We are warned that the British public are tired of the conflict in Northern Ireland and that they want the Army to withdraw and to leave it to the two sides to fight it out amongst themselves. Even yet it is not realised that the struggle in Northern Ireland is a struggle between a conspiracy to overthrow lawful authority and the forces of law and order. Two years ago the then Home Secretary said that we were at war with the IRA. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said in her speech today that there was an equality of lawlessness in Northern Ireland. I admit that there is some Protestant retaliation, which I strongly condemn, but it is minimal when compared with the cataract of violence mounted by the IRA. Only the inborn sense of the discipline of law-abiding people of Ulster has prevented a civil war, a war which for the past four years the IRA has been endeavouring to stimulate.
Our reply to the IRA atrocities has not been violence. Our answer has been to placate the strident demands of the Republican minority. We have made changes of the most fundamental kind. Local government has been radically altered and, in my opinion, altered for the worse. A Community Relations Ministry was established, an Ombudsman was appointed to investigate complaints and a great deal more besides was done which I have not time to enumerate.
What has the peaceful majority been given in return? There has been no co-operation or reconciliation. Instead there has been a mounting crescendo of new demands, increasing lawlessness and a catalogue of murder, assassination and explosion. Let us consider what Ulster has suffered. Let us look at the realities. Let us bear in mind that this is not an Oxbridge debating society. In proportion to the population of England and Wales, 30,000 people have been killed and 360,000 have been injured, while compensation for damage would amount to £2,000 million. Would the Government last one day if such a situation applied in this part of the United Kingdom?
After four years of communal torture, what do the Government now offer to the Ulster people, who have shown restraint and forbearance? The Government blandly state that they regard as their first priority the defeat of the terrorists. But what have the Government been doing since 1968? Have they not been searching out and destroying IRA gunmen with the utmost vigour, or have they been keeping a low profile?
The White Paper makes great play of democracy for Northern Ireland, yet on the crucial question of representation what has it to say? Despite reduced powers for the new Assembly—I know that there is to be an improvement to the financial position of the Stormont Assembly—the number of Ulster Members is not to be increased to its fair share of 20 Members in this House. It is hypocritical of the Government to talk about democracy and to deny proper representation for Ulster in this House.
The White Paper tells us that the Assembly is not to have power to make any law of a discriminatory kind. The offensive implication is that the Stormont Parliament passed such laws.

Mr. Fitt: Of course it did.

Mr. Kilfedder: I do not want to hear that noise from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He can make his speech tomorrow and provide facts and figures if he cares to do so. The 1920 Act expressly forbade any act being passed by the Ulster Parliament that was discriminatory and therefore could be challenged in the courts as ultra vires. I challenge the Secretary of State to give the House the name of any law which discriminates against any section of the population of Ulster.

Mr. Fitt: The Flags and Emblems Act.

Mr. Kilfedder: We hear mention of the Flags and Emblems Act, but that measure was used only when a flag was waved to provoke disorder. Surely that is an Act with which we would all agree.

Mr. Fitt: Nonsense.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State has had control of Ulster's affairs for over a year. If he has found any law of a discriminatory kind, no doubt he will tell us about it.
After four years of outrage, aided by the Dublin Government, we are expected to take part in a conference with the Republic of Eire. That conference has clearly two aims. First, it aims to initiate the formation of the Council of Ireland, in which the Ulster majority will be in a permanently subordinate position. Secondly, it aims to change the political status of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister admitted that the constitutional proposals will not exclude any subject which can be discussed or exclude any who wish to take part. Whatever the constitutional Bill may say about Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom, the proposed conference can sabotage the union by changing the status of Ulster.
What need is there for a Council of Ireland, quite apart from appeasing the Republicans like the hon. Member for Belfast, West and the IRA, Provisional or Official? We have had co-operation in the past between civil servants in Dublin and Belfast. As for the hoped-for co-operation against terrorism, there should be no need to buy the assistance of an allegedly friendly neighbour and fellow member of the EEC.
As British subjects, with the same sovereign Parliament and the same Queen, we demand British standards for all our people in Northern Ireland, Protestant and Roman Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist. Is that an unreasonable demand to make? Surely we are entitled to ask that we should be treated no differently from our fellow citizens in Great Britain. That is why, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) I put down the amendment which, I regret, has not been selected.
If proportional representation and the power sharing are regarded as the panacea for the supposed democratic ills of Northern Ireland, are they not also appropriate for the multi-racial communities of our large cities in Great Britain? The Tories and the Socialists do not want proportional representation in Great Britain because of their fear that it would allow the emergence of a third party—in other words, that it would allow the Liberals to have more representation in this House.
If the White Paper and the constitutional Bill to follow are not to be a charade like the mummers at an Irish fair, they must recognise the political reality that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland are not now and never have been involved in terrorism or the civil rights movement. The Ulster people want to live in harmony with their neighbours and contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Province and also to the prosperity of the United Kingdom, to which we are all proud to belong.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: In the very few momemts available to me, I want to mention two points in the White Paper. I shall vote for it but that does not mean that I have no reservations about it in addition to those I propose to mention now. The two are, I think, important.
The first relates to paragraph 56(b) of the White Paper. This says that for legislative purposes
… law and order, including the criminal law, the courts, penal institutions and the estab-ment and organisation of the police
are reserved matters. That is, they are not excepted matters which the Assembly

may not in any circumstances legislate for. The Assembly may legislate for those very matters of security which everybody in this House, irrespective of his views, regards as immensely important. But it may only do so with the agreement of Her Majesty's Government.
It seems to mean that the most important legislative matters in relation to Northern Ireland can be dealt with either in this place or in the Northern Ireland Assembly purely at the discretion of Her Majesty's Government, but with no ability on the part of this House to agree with Her Majesty's Government or not. That, in my view, is something that we shall have to look at closely when the Bill comes before us because I do not believe that it is simply and solely a matter for Her Majesty's Government to decide as distinct from these two assemblies. I have no objection to the Assembly or to this House legislating in certain circumstances, but it is a matter that this House must always discuss in such circumstances. It is too important an issue.
Secondly, I get rather incensed when anybody talks about the importance of the Assembly. I agree about its importance, and every single Member who has spoken, whatever his reservations about the White Paper, wants to see the Assembly elected, and elected quickly. I am grateful for the response of the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). Even the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said she hoped that Sinn Fein would be allowed to participate in the Assembly elections, which implies that she, too, wants the Assembly to be elected. Yet nobody that I have heard during this debate has mentioned the method of election by single transferable vote. Everybody says it is proportional representation. But let us consider the recent elections by STV in the Irish Republic.
Fianna Fail, the Government party: its percentage of the vote went up, but it lost the election. It even gained a greater percentage of seats than its increased percentage of the votes, but it still lost the election. Fine Gael and Labour in 1969 together had more than half the votes: there was a Fianna Fail Government as a result of that election.
Now Fine Gael and the Labour Party have fewer votes than they had in 1969 as a percentage of the electorate, but they have more than half the Dail and are the Government.
I hope that after a set of results such as that people will be a little chary of using the words "proportional representation" in relation to the STV system.
I know that is related to a situation in which the number of seats per constituency was three or four. I should like to correct the absent right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Liberal Party, who, when I suggested this earlier in an intervention to his speech, said that I was wrong and that he knew I was wrong because he is the Vice-Chairman of the Electoral Reform Society. I went out and checked, and out of 42 constituencies in the Irish Republic 40 have either three or four members. I suggest that that is an example of the well-known arrogance of the right hon. Gentleman, and that the Electoral Reform Society should keep in closer touch with its vice-chairman, or possibly change him.
The important point, more important than the right hon. Gentleman's inaccurate attacks on his colleagues, is that for this particular Assembly it is of the utmost importance that the precise views of the various parties in Northern Ireland be reflected as accurately as possible. Personally, I beg the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State opposite, whom I am glad to see is here for the winding up of this debate, to consider this with some care. It would be quite simple even at this relatively late stage to have a list system, which is a simple system of election which accurately reflects opinion even down to about 1 per cent. of the vote. This is very important because even with the constituencies in Northern Ireland that we are going to have, with more members than in the Republic, it will still be necessary to get 12½ per cent. of the votes in a constituency to get a single seat. It is very possible that the small violent minorities will not get such a percentage and, therefore, will not get a single seat, if they are allowed to stand for election. It is very possible that small minorities, such as those Catholics who believe in the Union, as it were, may not get a single

seat. Yet these are important minorities, important, although small, groups.
In Southern Ireland STV does not produce a total reflection of opinion but a three-party system, where one party has about half the votes, one party has about two-thirds of the remainder, and the last little fraction is the Labour Party. It is a three-party system primarily. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to have a system such as STV, which increases the power of individual personalities, which is not necessarily a good thing; which is destructive of parties, which is not necessarily a good thing; and which, above all, does not necessarily reflect opinion as well as a list system.
The right hon. Gentleman may recall that the countries in Europe most divided by religion, the Netherlands and Belgium, are countries that have a list system—for that very reason. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of adopting the STV system, as I imagine, from the Republic of Ireland—even if after the first Assembly is elected they wish to decide on a single transferable vote system, which would be a different matter—for this first Assembly it is of the utmost importance that the exact views of the electors be ascertained so that the Assembly cannot be challenged by anyone on the ground that it does not reflect the electorate.

9.40 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): Although this debate will continue tomorrow, a wide number of points have already been made and it might be useful if, in the remaining minutes this evening, I gather together some of those points and in particular if I talk about what might be called the economic and employment dimension of the Government's proposals for the future of Northern Ireland. These were mentioned briefly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the beginning of the debate and have been touched on by hon. Members. The House is perhaps owed an elaboration of the parts of the White Paper dealing with this aspect.
It has been suggested outside the House and by hon. Members today that economic and reconstruction aspects do not receive the proper prominence which they should in the proposals. I do not


accept this, because the parts in the White Paper, mainly around paragraph 83 onwards, may be brief but the undertakings, particularly those in paragraph 86, are substantial and important. They should not be minimised. I shall develop that point in a moment.
I should like first to say a word on the mechanisms and financial arrangements outlined in paragraph 83(a)(b)(c). For the foreseeable future Northern Ireland will need financial assistance in excess of its tax revenue. This means that the overall total of public expenditure will have to be acceptable to the Government and Parliament at Westminster. Within this total it is the intention that the Northern Ireland Assembly shall exercise as large a measure of freedom as possible in determining its expending priorities.
Broadly speaking it is planned to bring that about by dividing expenditure into two categories. The first will contain services which require consultation and agreement with the United Kingdom Government. These will include things such as cash social services, agricultural support and industrial assistance which will have to operate within the restraints imposed by overall United Kingdom policy. The second category will cover those services over which the Northern Ireland Assembly will be able to exercise a high degree of freedom and discretion. These will include things such as education, health, housing, trade and environmental services.

Mr. McMaster: How will the restraints be exercised if there is a majority vote in the new Assembly to do something which is contrary? Are there any powers to allow the Secretary of State to countermand such a majority vote?

Mr. Howell: I have said that the categories will have to be worked out. Things such as industrial assistance would be governed by overall considerations of the other regions as is the case now. Things such as agricultural support levels will be governed by overall agricultural policy. There will have to be a certain amount of give and take. The details and the divisions and the way in which arrangements will be operated will be discussed with the new institutions when they have been formed.
The Northern Ireland Assembly will have power only to raise local taxes such as rates and licence fees. Experience of the working of the arrangements embodied in the 1920 Act has shown that transferred taxation has little meaning because in practice there has been very little scope for variation in the rates of transferred taxes. For that reason it has been decided to recognise the reality of the situation and, with the exception of rates and licence fees, to leave taxation to Westminster.
It would be possible to depart altogether from the concept of Northern Ireland revenue and to abandon any attempt to attribute to Northern Ireland a yield of taxation levied there, but this could be misleading. Northern Ireland will continue to produce a yearly budget, and I believe that a false impression would be given if account were not taken of revenue received from its citizens.
It is proposed that the system of attribution of revenue should be continued, the amount attributed being paid out of the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund into that of Northern Ireland. The arrangements under which transfers are made for national insurance, industrial injuries and redundancies will continue. As Northern Ireland revenue will need to be supplemented by a sum to be voted annually by Parliament there is clearly no need for abody to arbitrate on the method or amount of attribution. Therefore, it is proposed that the Joint Exchequer Board which used to carry out the task should be abolished.
Those briefly, are the outlines of the actual mechanics of the financial arrangements proposed. I believe that they are straightforward and realistic. The details will be the subject of discussion with the Assembly.
Having talked about the mechanics, I should like to say something about the major aims of economic and social policy for which these financial arrangements are the means. First, I come back again to paragraph 86 of the White Paper in which the Government state their broad objectives, which are worth repeating because they are substantial:
to accomplish as rapidly as possible, once violence has ended, the task of physical reconstruction and rehabilitation created by the disorders of recent years;


to create a sound base for the economy and to encourage external industrial investment;
to work progressively towards the achievement in Northern Ireland of those standards of living, employment and social conditions which prevail in Great Britain.
No one pretends—I certainly do not— that the attainment of those aims will be easy but I believe that they reflect the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland citizens, and it is the firm intention of the Government to support their realisation. In doing so we start from a position which many outside observers might think would be almost impossible. Indeed, if one were to judge from the average publicity and the reporting of what has been going on in Northern Ireland over past years, one would think that the situation was almost beyond hope. But the fact of the matter, which is beginning to be realised in the outside world, is that the economic situation in Northern Ireland is not half as discouraging as it might be.
Obviously, the whole pattern of politics in Northern Ireland is elaborately, and sometimes I must confess perplexingly, bound up with the pattern of economic development. Obviously there are severe and unusual economic problems, which I do not for a moment minimise. To take the obvious example, many people in the minority sector of the community believe, though whether or not they are justified in believing it is another argument, that in the past the system has been unfairly weighted against them, not merely in terms of political power but in terms of jobs and opportunities.
The White Paper in paragraph 27 makes the general point that
In any part of the world an inadequate social environment breeds boredom, aimless-ness, alienation from society, vandalism and even violence.
The high level of unemployment in Belfast and provincial towns, which I accept as a fact, has been a factor in the violence and instability of recent years. That is one sense in which politics and economics come together where we are dealing with the economic situation.
There is another sense, more tragic and even more direct. For four years now, as hon. Members have reminded us, terrorists have been hacking at the economic

fabric of Northern Ireland. Their objective, in some cases declared, has been to terrify into submission those who do not share their views. It has also been to force people over here, with each successive atrocity or explosion, towards thinking that no progress is in sight or to be expected and that the only answer is to leave the Irish to their own devices. We have heard two examples of that.
It has been a specific terrorist objective to bring the economy of Northern Ireland to a halt. Destruction and disruption have been a familiar theme. People have said that the terrorists have proclaimed that all this must be done in order to clear a way for the different style of life which is their aim but not the aim of the vast majority.
I do not claim—it would be absurd to do so—that the terrorists have not made any impact. In addition to the appalling death and injury, the full monetary measure of damage to industry, commerce and housing will not be known for some lime yet. But I doubt whether it is less than £50 million.
The indirect effects may also have been very serious. There has been some effect on the willingness of new firms to move to Ulster, though not as great as I had previously imagined. But there has been some effect, and there have been fears expressed that violence may prevent orders being fulfilled. Northern Ireland businessmen have had to incur additional costs on security measures, and a few firms have had difficulty in getting night shifts going, especially in Belfast, and, obviously, the violence has been a general brake on the creation of new jobs.
I do not minimise the impact. But it is worth remembering that the overall objective of terrorism to destroy the fabric of the Northern Ireland economy has been totally frustrated. Ulster today is still very much in business. Since the middle of 1969 only 12 small firms which employed in all about 700 people have closed down completely as a result of physical damage. During the same period new jobs have been promoted at the rate of about 7,000 a year, and the Ministry of Commerce has negotiated new projects with 180 firms in Ulster, more than 30 of them new firms.
These facts and statistics may seem remote when looked at from the terrorist


situation. But they underline an encouraging situation. From mid-1969 to the end of 1972 production rose by 13 per cent. for all industries and by 15 per cent. for manufacturing. Those are rates which quite a number of other countries will envy. More important has been the relative freedom from industrial disputes. In this connection I agree with those who say that no praise is too high for the statesmanship and wisdom of the trade unions and the trade union leadership in Northern Ireland. They have been an oasis of wisdom and sanity in an appallingly difficult situation.
I do not think that there is any doubt that the Northern Ireland economy will weather the worst that terrorism can do from wherever it comes. There remain severe problems. There is the general problem in Northern Ireland as a depressed area of Britain with difficulties similar to those of other regions. There are the additional complexities on which I have touched. There is the high unemployment rate of 67 per cent. overall and going far higher than that in certain areas, with 11·2 per cent. in Londonderry and 15·2 per cent. in Newry.
On top of that there is the complication of which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are always acutely aware that in practically every economic and administrative decision we are dealing with two different dimensions. There is the dimension of employment, of improving the job situation and improving social policy. There is the dimension of the two main groups in the community and of distribution between them.
To take an example which has involved us very closely, it is not enough to provide new employment in Belfast as a whole. The plain fact is that with very large parts of the Roman Catholic and Protestant populations living in self-contained communities employment has to be seen to be available to both sides in a city in which mobility and the readiness to travel about have understandably been much reduced. As the White Paper says, we have to aim at a more even distribution of economic activity to meet that aspect of policy.
With some political settlement, with a return to peace, this should go a long way to breaking down economic barriers. But again the fact has to be faced that if we

were to get full peace and harmony tomorrow we should still have to recognise that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland will take a long time to become ready again to travel more than a very short distance to work. This creates especially difficult problems.
We also need to see Northern Ireland development in the regional context which the European Economic Community offers. I have no doubt that we need to look at the opportunities which are offered for constructive North-South co-operation on a variety of issues. My right hon. Friend mentioned some of them this afternoon. These are the possibiliites from which both sides would benefit—there is no doubt about that—but, like everything else, they have to be governed and driven forward by consent. They cannot be imposed on people who do not want to carry forward economic programmes between North and South.
Those are some of the special features which face us in Northern Ireland and make the problem of economic and social development acutely complicated. We have to make good the physical damage. We have to balance between the divisions of Northern Ireland society. We have to work, and we are working, within the overall strategic framework of the Northern Ireland Development Plan and we have at times to use a variety of what are somewhat unorthodox instruments and agencies, including our Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, the local enterprise development unit and a wide variety of other services tailored to particular needs of the area. In spite of setbacks in the number of jobs promoted and houses built, the development programme is for the most part on target, especially on the social side.
The provision of jobs under what we call the Urban and Rural Development Campaign is going according to plan. Young men are being brought to career employment. They are being enabled to carry out work which gives them pride in their community. This may be a risky and general observation to make but, as one drives around both the cities and the countryside, it seems that as a result of these programmes Ulster is in some areas beginning to look a tidier and better place with a better environment. Those are some of the steps that we have been


taking, and I thought it right that the House should know about them at this stage in the debate.
I have emphasised the economic aspects of the problem that we face. Although the White Paper puts our response and plans briefly, let there be no doubt that its words are the headlines for a major programme for reconstruction. But we have to get these things into perspective. I am not claiming—and no one would claim—that the most vigorous programme of economic reconstruction will work miracles on the political and security scene. It cannot be claimed that higher prosperity will in some magical way overcome terrorism. There is obviously a hard core of naked terrorism which knows no concern whatever for jobs and living standards, whether they be of Catholics or of Protestants.
One feels that acutely when one sees the deliberate destruction against training schools and places of work where jobs which existed yesterday are destroyed today for no logical, visible purpose. The idea that terror can be tackled in its hardest and worst form by economic measures is not a relevant and realistic one.
Despite all that, for the tens of thousands of people who may sometimes be frightened and sometimes intimidated, but who basically long for a normal life, a return to reason and to politics, the chance of a good job and a decent home makes a difference to the view they take of the future. Their determination to reject violent men and violent methods of economic and social advance is not everything, but in the whirlpool of Northern Ireland it has an important stabilising rô1e to play; and the pledges in the White Paper are central to the reconstruction and development of Northern Ireland and are what Northern Ireland wants and needs.
Together with the continuing assault on terror and criminality and the constant efforts to recreate politics, these proposals on the economic side are part of the overall aim of the Government and of our overall strategy, which is to bring Northern Ireland step by step to a better future of peace, stability and prosperity. That is what we are about, and that is what we are determined to do.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT (EXTENSION)

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act Extension Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
In the circumstances in which this order comes forward tonight I think I would not be very popular if I were to speak at great length. We have spent a whole day on issues intimately related to the question of extension of the present temporary provisions Act and many points have been made this afternoon and many more will be made in far greater depth tomorrow. This order is a consequence and pre-requisite—if that is not a paradox—of the proposals set out in the White Paper.
The Government have proposed in the White Paper that elections to the new Assembly in Northern Ireland should be held as soon as possible, that my right hon. Friend will then engage in discussions with elected representatives of parties to determine how devolution on the basis of Government by consent may take place, and that when the Government are satisfied that the conditions laid down in paragraph 53 of the White Paper have been met he will seek the approval of Parliament for an order to devolve powers on the Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive.
Until powers have been devolved in this way Northern Ireland must continue to be governed, and it is clearly essential that responsibility must continue to lie with this Parliament. This is the purpose of this extension order, which extends the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act for a further 12 months. Without it the Act would lapse on 30th March and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 would be automatically restored. The fact that the order extends direct rule for a further period of 12 months does not carry any hidden significance. It is our sincere wish that well before the end of this

period the arrangements proposed in the White Paper will have been given effect, but the temporary provisions Act permits of an extension of only 12 months.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is just one year since we went through what I think can be regarded as the traumatic experience of instituting direct rule. I think it would certainly be regarded as such by hon. Members from Northern Ireland. It had profound effects on the politics of Northern Ireland and it led to the White Paper after we had had what could be called a massive political rethink, the Darlington Conference in September, the Green Paper and now the White Paper.
If this White Paper succeeds there should be no need for subsequent orders, but I presume—we have not yet seen the Bill—that it may go on and we would be back to an arrangement of direct rule of this nature.
I want to raise only two points and I do not want to go into great detail. I want to say a word about security and to repeat what I said the other day. It may be that this House, acting in the way in which it did and thinking and talking about it, may have influenced public opinion. We have been fortunate in the last week or two when perhaps we could have been otherwise and there was not an outbreak on the streets. I want to be reassured, as I am sure I can be, that if there is any danger at all in this period of direct rule of politics on the streets in a major way, the security forces are as ready to deal with that as they were on the day when the White Paper was published.
It would be fatal to any political development in the Province if the sort of thing that happened on the day of the strike were to happen again. I hope that the Minister can assure me that questions about policing which have been raised tentatively today in a wider context are being considered and that the Secretary of State, and his Ministers are thinking about the problems of policing. There is a real problem in the sense of community policing, not in a precise way but as a problem of lack of policing in some cases.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member is talking about demonstrations and strikes. I understand that today the Labour Party has come out in favour of the May Day strike. Will they be asking the Government to make sure that these demonstrations are properly policed so that there is no improper conduct by those who are striking?

Mr. Rees: I was referring to people dressed in para-military uniforms and calling themselves lieutenants, colonels and so on and putting barricades across the street, which is not an industrial dispute. We would give firm support to the Army, regardless of what community they come from, in seeing that this is broken down. I represent an area in the North where many of the chaps are in the Services and they, to put it mildly, are fed up to the eyeballs with people who are dressed up as soldiers. Nothing would give them greater pleasure than to deal with these people. From whatever part of the community it comes, this situation has to be dealt with, under direct rule and after.
There is the question of accountability. I have referred today to the long run, but what will happen in the short run, which can take us to March of next year? There have been 31 items of legislation through this House in the last year. We have got what one can call major pieces of legislation stemming from the White Paper, which will keep many of us busy for a long time, but these orders are still coming through. There are real problems for all of us on both sides of the Chamber.
Have the Government applied their mind to this situation, which will last another year—and the last year has not been entirely satisfactory. I would be the last to say that I know the answer. I realise that there are difficulties, but if we have another year of legislation coming through in the form of orders we will have to look afresh at the situation. I do not wish to mention again the list of the types of order which will be coming through.
Another point which I think should be put forward concerns the local elections. If there are to be local elections, we have put forward the argument, which has been

put to us, for postponing them. No doubt the Secretary of State will talk about that tomorrow. As things stand, the local elections will be on 30th May. We nave raised today the question of who will be allowed to stand in the Assembly elections. The question arises of who will be allowed to stand in the local elections if they take place at the time already given.
From my own researches—it is a complicated matter, on which the Minister might not wish to reply tonight—the question arises of who will be allowed to stand in the local elections. I have heard the names of people who belong to Republican-type organisations who, I have been told, will stand in the local elections. If they are to stand in the local elections, it begins to occur to me to wonder why they should not stand in the Assembly elections. This should be cleared up at some stage.
It is too soon to write the history of the last year. Its justification will be the success of the White Paper. I hope that the White Paper does succeed and that direct rule in the form that we have had it over the last year will be something written about by parliamentary historians.

10.9 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I wish to be brief, because I do not want to anticipate what I hope to say in the debate tomorrow when I come to catch your eye, Sir, to move my amendment. I would endorse what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has just said. We are proposing to continue a highly unsatisfactory Act and we must find some way of dealing with the business which comes forward under that Act more satisfactorily than we have over the past year.
Whatever may happen, even if we have the device that the hon. Gentleman suggested, of bringing forward the legislation for erecting the Assembly so as to enable elections to take place in June, the Assembly itself cannot conceivably have power to legislate over the whole field until all the arrangements about what is to be devolved have been worked out. That is as I understand it. Therefore we in this House are likely to deal with the Northern Ireland legislation during the next year.
Consequently it is of the utmost importance that we should look again at


how we handle the procedure. It is highly unsatisfactory. Here we are at the end of the first day of a two-day debate affecting the future of Northern Ireland, and after debate on this order we have a highly important order which, in the normal course, would be worthy of, say, a day's debate in the new Assembly. We are to embark on it at this kind of hour of night when we are expecting another day's debate next day.
This kind of thing must not happen during the forthcoming year. I hope that those who manage the Government's business, through the usual channels, and perhaps with consultation with us who represent Northern Ireland, will find a more satisfactory method of dealing with vital new legislation. Heretofore, the legislation which has come before us has been legislation some of which started in Stor-mont, some of it which even went through many stages in the old Stormont. The legislation which will be coming will be new legislation, and very important legislation at that.
The only other thing I would say on this order is that we are prolonging an Act which I opposed in the House, and which those of us from Northern Ireland opposed. I said on Third Reading of that Bill that I thought it was a recipe for an escalation of violence. I am content to leave history to judge whether this year has shown whether I was right or not.
At this stage, however, I would simply say that this is a highly unsatisfactory Act under which we are operating. It must be brought to an end. We shall be discussing tomorrow one way of bringing it to an end, but whatever else happens, whatever be the results, whatever we decide about the White Paper itself, we must never go back to this type of procedure again. We must find some other solution. It is a bad Act. I profoundly hope we will never continue it again.

10.12 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The vast majority of representatives in Northern Ireland at various times—and at some parts of the voting, all of them —have voted against the Act, and our opinion has not changed, but I think it would be highly irresponsible for any of us to suggest that we put the clock back tonight, because if we did carry the

House with us there would be absolute bedlam in Northern Ireland. So we must be realistic about this.
There is another order to come before us and in it there are various matters relevant to Departments about which I shall feel it my duty to speak on behalf of my constituents. What worries me about this whole situation under direct rule is that the constituents of Members for Northern Ireland, when they come to the position where they cannot get Ministers to budge on certain things, have not the opportunity through their representatives to ventilate those matters on the Floor of the House. Our opportunities are very limited indeed. They were available at Stormont because there a Member of Parliament could bring a matter affecting his constituents to the Floor of the House, air that matter, and seek to remedy the grievance which his constituents felt. Those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland and who have now no local parliament in which to ventilate the very real grievances of the people have felt that by these Orders in Council we have not had adequate opportunity to represent the people who sent us to this House.
I disagreed with direct rule. I voted against it. But I want to make it clear that I never engaged in "Whitelaw-bashing", as did some politicians in Northern Ireland. It would be churlish of me tonight not to pay a tribute to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the Ministers associated with him; some not with him now, some still with him, and the new members of his team. As a Member of Parliament I have received courtesy from them and have had access to them. I have had a sympathetic ear given to the grievances which I have sought to put to them, and in many cases my constituents have been satisfied. I could get to the ear of the Minister quicker under direct rule than I ever got to the ear of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland when I was a Member of the Stormont Parliament. That fact should be placed on record and made absolutely clear.
It would be wrong of me not to pay that tribute. I did not get everything for which I asked but at least my constituents' cases were understood and they received attention.
I know from experience that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has carried a great burden. The differences we have had with him—which I shall be expressing tomorrow in the debate— in no way detract from the fact that we believe him to be a man of integrity and sincerity, a man who has sought to understand, as no other Minister has understood, exactly what the people of Northern Ireland are thinking and feeling.
I hope to raise other matters when we reach the next order tonight, but I must join with the Opposition spokesman and the Leader of the Unionist Party on the Government side of the House in saying that I hope that in the future the business of Northern Ireland that will be reserved to this House even when the new Assembly is operating and when powers are devolved upon it, will not be brought before the House in the way that these matters have been in the past. The Orders in Council will have to cease, or there will have to be some way whereby amendments can be tabled to this type of Northern Ireland legislation.
It should be clearly understood that the Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland cannot amend anything that comes before the House as an Order in Council. We can voice our objections and vote against them, but we cannot amend. We were promised a Committee by the Leader of the House a long time ago. That Committee is now shelved. We are having to renew this Bill for a year. We do not know how great a part of that year will have to pass before the Assembly gets under way and powers are devolved to it.
From reading the White Paper, anyone will know that there are vast departments of Government work which are reserved to this House. We should have some intimation tonight of the way in which these matters are to be brought before the House.
Another matter which greatly concerns me is that there has been no scrutiny of the accounts of the departments in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee was abolished on the prorogation of Stormont. Regarding accountability, no one knows whether

these accounts have gone to the Public Accounts Committee of this House. If they have gone to that important body, they have gone to a body which has no voice from Northern Ireland in it capable of scrutinising these accounts. It is all very well for the Minister to tell us of all the money that the Government are giving to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Members have a right to see how that money is being spent, but they will not have an opportunity to do so. We have asked for information time and again but we do not get it.
Are the Stormont Government not to account for the way that they spent their money up to the day the Stormont Parliament was prorogued? Is that all to be forgotten about? Just before prorogation, the Public Accounts Committee was investigating a very important matter about what it thought was the mis-spending of money on the Ulster Office—many thousands of pounds—in keeping an office that was not even tenanted. In the midst of that investigation Stormont was prorogued. Is there any way whereby that Public Accounts Committee investigation can be carried on by hon. Members of this House who represent Northern Ireland constituencies? There must be some way of providing for accountability. I am Mill opposed to direct rule. It was not the right way to deal with the problem, but it came and now it is history. There is no need for us tonight to carry on in this debate about trying to vote on it. It is a matter of the past and we must move forward, but when we move forward I trust that we shall have satisfaction at the way Northern Ireland business is conducted in the future.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: There have been a lot of confessions in the last 10 minutes about how hon. Members voted on the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act and how they have now decided that even if they were against it the order today has to go through. I too will make my confession. I voted for the Tory Government's Bill. I welcomed it. It was one of those strange delights to my soul to see a Tory Government bringing about the prorogation of Stormont. It was only to be prorogued, we were told, but we knew it would never meet again in its old form. It was a start of


a long road and we still have a long way to go to get the sort of Ireland that I want. I hope that what I want is also the sort of Ireland that the Irish people want although it is not for me to tell them what they must have.
There is an important point at issue, which nearly everybody who has spoken on the order has raised. It concerns the legislation that has come before the House, generally in the early hours of the morning or certainly between 10 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. There was one halcyon day when by the grace of God and the Leader of the House we were allowed a Friday to discuss a great number of statutory instruments. But apart from that we have had no real opportunity to examine legislation governing part of what is claimed to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is wrong that major pieces of legislation should have come forward in the form of statutory instruments. It has been argued that the majority of those statutory instruments have been presented to Stormont, that some of them had been debated in Stormont, although the original Opposition had quitted the place and the Democratic Unionists had become the Opposition and had scrutinised them. Some of the measures received had only casual Second Readings and some of them were not too carefully examined in Committee. Nevertheless, it was a reasonable and tenable argument because of pressure on the time of the House, because the legislation had been before Stormont, because no real exception had been taken to what was being done and, apart from a few minor modifications here and there, a few commas and full stops and the odd clause, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Department were not doing a great deal to alter the legislation.
We are now, however, in an entirely new situation. Later tonight we shall deal with the appropriation order and tomorrow we have the very important firearms order, which is a matter of great importance and something which hon. Members were talking about and urging before Stormont was prorogued. All we shall be able to do tomorrow is to allow the order through, to vote against it or to voice our criticism so strongly that the Government will perhaps withdraw it and re-examine its provisions.
We are therefore on the horns of a dilemma. If we vote against it we shall be voting against something that many of us have wanted for a long time, even if it goes only part of the way to meeting our objectives. It must go through, even though it does not give us all we want because we know from past experience that we will not get the Government to withdraw it. In part we should not want them to withdraw it any way. We shall be presented with a piece of legislation disguised as a statutory instrument which concerns the ownership, possession and licensing of guns, the testing of guns and the whole principle of who should have guns, where they should be and what sort of licensing system we should have, and at no time will any hon. Member of the House—the official Opposition, the Unionist Party or the Government's supporters—be able to attempt to amend that legislation.
We do not know what the Government have in the pipeline for the future. We know that they have some Bills coming forward which are of tremendous political importance. We know also that they have legislation, stemming from Bills passed by Stormont or from regulations made under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, which we shall have no opportunity to scrutinise or to amend. It is wrong that the House should be put in this position. It is wrong that the people of Northern Ireland should not be able to influence the contents of the legislation by having the parts that they find obnoxious withdrawn or by having strengthened the parts that they want strengthened. They are given the whole issue on a plate—take it or leave it.
It is of no value for the Government to say that they have consulted this, that and the other interest when the interest which should be the Government's prime concern, namely the House of Commons, has no opportunity either to be consulted or to amend.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is right. The procedure by which we handle Northern Irish legislation is a procedure which I call a constitutional scandal and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlin Rees), in the full mood of Front


Bench consensus, described as not entirely satisfactory. But the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, knows perfectly well that this is the inevitable consequence of direct rule, which he tells us he greeted with sadistic glee. I am one of the political mixed grill that fought direct rule through the night a year ago, and in retrospect I am glad that I did. That does not mean that I yield to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in respect for the Secretary of State. He said that he was not a Whitelaw basher. I sometimes think that the hon. Member is in danger of becoming a Castle Protestant.
I shall not rehearse the constitutional, political and indeed military arguments against direct rule. Having read what has been written by Lord MacDermott I understand that certain legal doubts are cast upon the imposition of direct rule, but this is neither the time nor the place to go into that.
It would have been much more in keeping with the Tory philosophy which should actuate a Conservative Government if, instead of yielding to the first demand of the Provisional IRA, they had sought to adapt, improve and reform the traditional institutions instead of abolishing them and having to start again from rock bottom.
The suspension of Stormont was resented not only by Conservative Members; it was, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South, said, a traumatic experience keenly felt not only by Unionists but by politicians and people of different persuasions on both sides of the border.
For practical reasons which have been mentioned, I shall not seek to divide the House on this order. But if it had been possible to allow the order to lapse to the extent of permitting the Senate and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland to reassemble for the purpose simply of debating the White Paper, in parallel with the debate in this House and in the other place, it might have been of some benefit to our counsels.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus (Fermanagh & South Tyrone): I am also one of the "mixed grill" who voted against direct rule a year ago—and, looking back, it was a most unholy grill likely to poison any-

body who tasted it. However, my sentiments have not changed in the year that has passed.
I want to refer to one of the most recent pieces of humbug namely the song and dance that is being made by the Unionist Members about increased representation. All of a sudden they have become most democratic creatures. When they were stomping around Stormont, they were so democratic that an anti-Unionist never got elected to the chairmanship or vice-chairmanship of a committee in Stormont.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It should be put clearly on record that a Northern Ireland Labour Party Member, Mr. Simpson, was for many years the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. McManus: It should also, in fairness, be put on record that Mr. Simpson, though an admirable person, was a "unionist" in that he believed in the link with Britain and constituted no danger or offence to the Unionist Party.
As I was saying, Unionist Members have suddenly become democratic and insistent on fuller representation. If they have been converted to democracy, nobody would welcome it more than I, but I have no reasons for suspecting that it has something to do with the party political struggle. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has taken up this cause for a long time now, and, if such a situation were to come about, the hon. Gentleman would no doubt become the most important politician on the Unionist side, and might lead what is left of what is recognisable as the Unionist Party. I find it most painful to have to agree with the British Government about anything at all, but in this respect they are right. I encourage them to stick to what they are doing on this score and not to get involved in Unionist party politics which have been very painful for the last 50 years.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I, like many of my hon. Friends, have not changed my view that the Act passed a year ago was a mistake. It was then freely admitted on both sides of the House that the object was to break the power of the majority party in Northern Ireland. Some right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House—with


some notable exceptions—used the rather more refined expression that the object was to break the mould. They succeeded in the mould-breaking beyond their wildest expectations. Indeed its success has become an embarrassment, because they are now unable to arrest the process. They now have to deal not only with political parties, but with the parapolitical forces created by direct rule.
It ill became my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to sneer at those of us, particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who are prepared, and have been prepared, to provide the type of political leadership to ensure that the various groups were able to sit round the table, and even in the City Hall of Belfast, to resolve jointly that they will use the democratic processes to the full. That achievement should be noted and placed on record. Sections 6 and 7 of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 dealt with the transitional period—namely, the coming into operation of the Act.
If the proposed early elections take place—and I welcome the assurances that we have been given today—and if the new Assembly can be established in the early part of this year, the second year of direct rule—there will be a transition in reverse. It is essential that there should be no stalling in decision making during the transitional period and that the momentum of the various Stormont Departments should be maintained.
It is vital that the Ministry of Development and the Ministry of Health and Social Services should operate at the very peak of efficiency during a year when all the complicated new structures will be set up. They are structures which have nothing to do, and had nothing to do, with the so-called reform programme which was planned and designed by the old and much maligned Stormont years before the bogus civil rights movement took to the streets.
I join with my hon. Friends in paying a sincere tribute to the Secretary of State and his colleagues for their superhuman efforts during the past year. In many cases they have had to combine three or four ministries under their stewardship. However, if it is necessary, the team must

be, or should be, augmented to maintain its standard in what is likely to be an even more difficult year.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Last year I moved an amendment after the Attorney-General had broken his assurance to the House that the 40 days for praying against statutory instruments would be 40 days in which the House, by its own rules and practices, could entertain Prayers against statutory instruments. The Attorney-General gave that specific assurance and then failed to honour it. He did not accept the amendment which would have implemented his assurance. The House will further recollect that it was announced that a Select Committee was to be set up. I was invited to submit evidence to that committee. I am still awaiting the opportunity to do so a year later.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Shame.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have been in communication with the Clerk to the Committee on a number of occasions. I should be grateful if the Minister of State will tell me what has happened to that Committee. As I have not had the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee—and I notified it that I wished to do so before it was set up—it cannot be in a position to report. It is a very unhappy situation.
I have twice endeavoured to introduce a Private Member's Bill to introduce a procedure which would enable statutory instruments to be amended. That Bill was murdered by the Labour Party Whips. It ill behoves any Labour hon. Member to protest that there is no procedure under which a statutory instrument can be amended. The events of the last year have shown that we need such a procedure.
I do not want my observations in any way to detract from the gratitude which I feel towards the Secretary of State and his colleagues for discharging in such a courageous and dedicated manner the duties which no hon. Member could have wished to have had thrust upon him, duties which have never successfully been carried out in history by anyone upon whom they have been thrust. It was an act of supreme public service by my right hon. Friend to accept these duties.
I did not oppose the Act a year ago. I voted for it because I could see no other manner in which the problem could be tackled. I still believe that there was no other manner in which it could have been tackled. But that is not to say that I do not wish to see—because I do wish to see—procedures whereby what is in fact Government by Order in Council can be subject to amendment and fuller discussion in the House.

10.40 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: One is becoming almost worried about the late-night confessions and prayers being delivered on both sides of the House. If I were the Secretary of State, I would be very worried by the amount of lavish praise being heaped upon me. Indeed, it all sounds rather like an obituary in The Times. I would watch very carefully the sources of such praise.
I have no apology to make for voting last year against the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. I voted against it not because I agreed with the particularly undemocratic nature of Stor-mont, but because I felt that opposition to a lack of democracy was no excuse for voting for even less democracy, which was what we got. We moved from what was a very undemocratic and sectarian establishment in Northern Ireland to a virtual dictatorship in this House.
As an independent Member of this House, I feel that the particular difficulty in which I find myself—and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and perhaps even the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) feel the same—is that those of us who do not have party representation have to be personally present here in the House of Commons or personally present in Northern Ireland.
Being an independent Member, one often has to make the choice of where one feels one is the more urgently needed. That, to a great degree, results in individual Members, particularly independents like myself, not being present at peculiar hours in the morning here when legislation is discussed—legislation to which, as has been pointed out—there can be no amendments. One has then only the opportunity of being a very

small minority voting in opposition, given the bi-partisan policy and accepting that, whatever the democratic processes of the House, whatever the length of time a matter may be debated in the small hours, there is not really any point to one's presence.
One almost feels a despair that, while I would totally argue against increasing what is tantamount to ineffective representation in this House, if matters are to be conducted in a proper fashion, one has to face the fact that one might as well not be here at one or two o'clock in the morning simply in order to voice an objection to something which will go through the House anyway when one's presence is required in Northern Ireland.
While opposing further ineffective membership of this House, which I see no point in, I certainly ask the Secretary of State to devise some more satisfactory means of effective representation by the present Members from Northern Ireland in future legislation. It is totally unsatisfactory that the population of Northern Ireland should be expected to be satisfied with what is pushed through here in an hour or so, when, were it to happen in Great Britain, there would be a much greater outcry for an independent Scotland or an independent Wales.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: Several hon. Members have made the point that the system which has operated during the past year is totally unsatisfactory. I hope that in the year ahead more satisfactory arrangements will be made for discussing the various orders which come before us. Tribute has been paid to the work of the Secretary of State and his as?istants. I should be failing in my duty if I did not pay tribute to the members of the Civil Service here and in Northern Ireland who have worked many long hours in preparing Orders in Council and the various pieces of legislation. I hope it will be recognised that in Northern Ireland we have a Civil Service second to none. I trust it will not be said that it let the side down in the past year.
I voted against the Temporary Provisions Bill and at the time I referred to it as "Instant Whip Government." I am no more in line with the measure now. but I believe that to vote against an extension of it would be lunacy. I hope that before long conditions will have


changed and that legislation relating to Northern Ireland will find its rightful place in the new Assembly.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I know that the House would like to have a few words from another Northern Ireland Member on this the anniversary of a sad day in the history of this country's relations with Northern Ireland—a loyal part of this kingdom. The measure was introduced in the first place because of the IRA terror campaign. Today that campaign is being waged with greater vigour than in March 1972. As we in the Ulster Unionist Council were debating the White Paper yesterday there were bombs going off in Belfast and Londonderry.
Shortly after I had spoken an explosion occurred a short distance away which made the Ulster Hall shake. It certainly did not shake the spirit of the Ulster people who were represented there. It is a sad reflection that the anniversary of the extension of this measure should be marked by more bombs and atrocities such as the murder of those three young British soldiers in the Antrim Road area of Belfast.
There are compliments being paid to the Civil Service. I share the tribute which has been expressed for the work of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. However, I do not believe that there is a smooth relationship between civil servants in Stormont and those who come from Whitehall to show the civil servants at Stormont how things should be done. But then, the civil servants from Whitehall stay in the luxury Culloden hotel, protected by the Army. I was told—I am not sure whether it is fair to say this—that they were fed up with the luxurious food being provided for them.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was in a confessional mood tonight. She confessed, quite rightly, that there is not much point in taking part in debates on Orders in Council under this Act because there is no opportunity to amend them. We are impotent to change the Government's attitude. That was our experience with the Education and Libraries Order. We put forward many important suggestions, but they were all cast aside. We could not amend the order, and the same has applied to every other order which has been produced.
We shall see more orders produced by this Government during direct rule. We shall not be able to amend them. We are taking part in a sad and sorry charade. I believe that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) agrees with me that this is not democracy. It is not democracy for orders to be dealt with in this way, at a late hour of the night, without opportunities to amend them, and without a proper period of time in which interested hon. Members may debate them.
This is a sad anniversary and one which I trust will not be repeated in March 1974.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Cognisant of the fact that my constituent, Gunner Curtis, was the first British soldier to lose his life in the holocaust of Northern Ireland, I supported direct rule a year ago, and I support the order tonight. But I must put in a caveat. I believe that the time is now very close, if not here, when the Irish people have to take some responsibility for their own destiny.
The moment cannot be too far away when this House has to say to the people of that unhappy island that they have some time in which to take responsibility for their own destiny but that, at the end of the period, they ought to think very seriously about it, because when that time comes we shall no longer be responsible for having British troops there at the risk of their lives to protect them.
I hope sincerely that responsible elements in Ireland will realise that time is running out, that they have to face up to their responsibilities, and that the people of this island are not prepared much longer to see the lives of British lads put at risk.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Unfortunately, Gunner Curtis was shot in my constituency by the IRA, which claimed responsibility, as it has for all the other soldiers who have been killed since.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) does not help the situation one iota. It only causes the


majority to fear the consequences, because if the Army is to be withdrawn and people are to be left to the tender mercies of the IRA whose members have cruelly murdered and bombed and destroyed property for the past three years, what else can we do but try to protect ourselves?
I say sincerely to the hon. Gentleman and to others who adopt the same line that they should think carefully about what they say. They are really saying that they give in to terrorism and violence. But what are the likely consequences of that for the rest of the United Kingdom?

10.55 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I think that I should answer one or two of the points that have been raised in this short debate even though, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may feel, as I am sure the House does, that we have had a lot of debate today on Northern Ireland.
I am sure the House will understand if I say that the arguments that we have heard this evening about the virtues or vices of the procedures under direct rule are not unfamiliar to me after a year of legislation of this kind. We have always recognised that the procedure of Orders in Council to deal with matters which under the former Northern Ireland Parliament were full-scale Bills is inadequate. We recognise that this is a temporary measure, the word temporary being embodied in the wording of the original Act and in the extension order. This seems to be all the more reason to press ahead, by debate and without undue obstruction, towards the new proposals to enable the people of Northern Ireland to enjoy a fuller form of representation and a more effective form of legislation. That, surely, is the answer to all those who say that they do not like the present system.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked about security. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the level of the security forces and the requirements for security are and will be constantly reviewed in the light of events that arise in the months ahead. I assure the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

will say something about the immensely difficult problem of policing.
The hon. Gentleman asked about people standing for election. I think that what he is really asking about is proscribed organisations. I ask him to await the decision of the Government on this issue.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and others for their tributes. They are gratefully received at this time, when such compliments are rare.
My hon. Friend asked for comments on public accounts and the question of scrutiny. I think I have told my hon. Friend before—and I repeat it now—that the public accounts which were outstanding for scrutiny and comment by the Comptroller and Auditor General at the time of prorogation can be looked at by the Public Accounts Committee of this House The Committee can also look at the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General of Northern Ireland on these accounts, and at all accounts arising from the period under direct rule.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General be available to Members of the House who are not members of the PAC?

Mr. Howell: Reports of the PAC, together with the evidence submitted to it. are available to hon. Members.
I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was making a point about a Select Committee on delegated legislation. I shall make sure that his comments are passed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) made some remarks about civil servants and seemed to imply that there was a lack of harmony between the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office and those in Northern Ireland. I resent my hon. Friend's remarks, and I suspect that they are irresponsible and unfounded. Further, I suspect that there is not the slightest shred of evidence to substantiate my hon. Friend's comments. If there is, he should produce it. If there is not, he should not make irresponsible comments. They do no good, and they are resented by civil servants, both in London and in Northern Ireland, who


have worked tirelessly to serve the country of which my hon. Friend is a citizen. They ill deserve to be rewarded with innuendoes.

Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend has called my remarks irresponsible. If my hon. Friend does not want me to give them to him in public I shall be happy to give him in private names and addresses to bear out what I have said. There is concern at Stormont among civil servants, and it is no use trying to gloss over the fact. The Government ought to be aware that there is concern about interference. That is something my hon. Friend ought to bear in mind and not dismiss my remarks as irresponsible.

Mr. Howell: Having heard these public accusations, I and others will want substantial evidence to support them. The accusations will have to be based on real evidence before we accept them.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have no knowledge of these matters, but if allegations of this kind are to be made they should be made in the House and not in correspondence.

Mr. Howell: I am sure that is so, and that is what I meant by saying that hon. Members would want to hear these allegations made in that way.
Aside from that, this has been an evening when there has been a looking back. Those who voted against at the time felt justified and used arguments which the Government reject because we do not see things that way and do not relate cause and effect as some hon. Members do. They are entitled to their views and these things are to be taken seriously.
I am grateful for the remarks made about my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends. We now face the coming months in which we have to build on what the Government have achieved, and to carry forward the assault on terrorism which has been carried on with great success— it cannot be dismissed—and to rebuild a situation in which politics can begin again in Northern Ireland. That is what the coming months will be about.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act Extension Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION ORDER)

11.1 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 413), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.
This first Appropriation Order for Northern Ireland in 1973 combines the Spring Supplementary Estimates for 1972– 73 and the sums on account which are required for the year ending 31st March 1974. It serves the two purposes.
I mentioned when speaking to the Appropriation No. 3 (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 that in the normal pattern of things further Supplementary Estimates would be required before the end of the financial year, and the details of the amounts which are required are set out in Part I of Schedule B to this order.
The total of the Northern Ireland Estimates for the year now amounts to £466,146,100 of which hon. Members will note from the order that the Spring Supplementary Estimates come to £20,696,800. This latter figure is net after allowing for savings on expenditure of £2,300,000 and increased appropriation-in-aid totalling £1,400,000. The main reasons for the increases are increased expenditure arising from the violence and troubles—£10,300,000 for compensation for malicious injuries and damage and about £2,200,000 for additional expenditure on police overtime, prison officers overtime and related main heads.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Has my hon. Friend any provision for danger money for the police? My hon. Friend will be aware of the necessity to build up the police in Northern Ireland and to increase their pay in order to improve recruitment. Has any provision been made to increase pensions and student allowances to meet the rapid inflation of the past six months or year and the inflation anticipated in the next year?

Mr. Howell: Without having checked, I do not think that allowance has been made on the second point. The first point has been raised before, that is


special allowances for the RUC, but the view taken by the police authority is that that is not the right way to recognise the very considerable work put in by that branch of the security forces in Northern Ireland. This is a matter for the police authority and not one in which it would be proper for Ministers to intervene, but I will take note of what my hon. Friend says.
The other main cause of the Supplementary Estimates, the £20 million block, is pay and price increases, which account for £7,200,000 of the total.
With the extra £10,300,000 for compensation which I have mentioned, the total for the year 1972–73 under this head is now £30,300,000. It has obviously been very difficult to estimate this figure precisely, and, as hon. Members may have seen, it was necessary to produce a second Supplementary Estimate, which is incorporated in the totals which we are at present considering, purely for this head. I assure the House that every effort is being made to arrive at settlements and to pay compensation as quickly as is humanly possible. This is one of the reasons why the Estimates have had to be brought forward in this way.
The need to make compensation payments quickly was one of the main reasons for laying this order under the urgent procedure. That procedure is also essential to ensure that there will be sufficient administrative time to allow large payments from the Consolidated Fund to be made before the end of the financial year, which is just a matter of days ahead of us. This is obviously especially important in cases in which payments which must be made before the end of the financial year are due to local and other public authorities.
For the Vote on Account part of the order tonight, hon. Members will have the opportunity to consider the 1973–74 Estimates in detail when the order to appropriate the balance of Supply for 1973–74 is presented, together with the usual volume setting out the full details of the Estimates early in the new financial year.
However, it would be right to mention now that the £95 million shown in the Vote on Account statement, which appears on paper to be the increase in total

net Estimates between 1972–73 and 1973– 74 is largely accounted for by, in the first place, the £45 million which arises simply from the transfer of services from local to central Government which takes place on 1st October, 1973.
So this £45 million does not represent additional public expenditure; it is merely a transfer. There will be offsets on existing local government expenditure and the central Government will receive the major part of Northern Ireland rate income after 1st October 1973. So that rather alarming jump arises in that way, and means that the two figures are not strictly comparable.
The Estimates for 1973–74 do not take into account, as they are now, any changes which might arise following the White Paper. With those remarks, I ask the House to accept the order.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: It appears from what was said during the earlier discussion that several hon. Members have matters which they wish to raise in this debate, so it would hardly be logical for me to take up a disproportionate amount of that time complaining that they will have an inadequate opportunity of doing so. But it might be helpful to clarify our minds about the procedure that we are adopting. This was referred to in general by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and by other hon. Members during our last debate.
This order purports to be made under Section 1(3) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, which formed the subject matter of our last debate. That provides that laws, including, of course, appropriations, may be made by Order in Council instead of by Act of Parliament. On 12th June last year the hon. Gentleman, the Minister, told the House that financial Orders in Council are intended to replace the Finance Bill and that Supply will be dealt with by means of appropriation orders. So what we are now dealing with is what is dealt with in this House in relation to England, Wales and Scotland, in debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill and on the Appropriation Bill.
That raises a point of particular constitutional importance in relation to


Orders in Council dealing with appropriations, because it is an ancient and salutary principle that parliamentary control of the executive is achieved largely by insisting on redress of grievances before Supply, and the process of Supply, accordingly, affords opportunity of debating matters which are close to the hearts of hon. Members and their constituents. For that purpose, in relation to England, Wales and Scotland, we are afforded a series of what sometimes transpire to be very lengthy debates.
A debate of one-and-a-half hours on an order of this kind is really not an acceptable alternative, particularly when it takes place at an hour approaching midnight. We all know what happened to Cinderella. Admittedly, this is taking place under the Temporary Provisions Act, and there is hope, notwithstanding the last debate, that that Act will in due course justify its name, but I am not encouraged to an optimistic view by the appropriate paragraphs of the White Paper referred to by the hon. Gentleman in the earlier debate, paragraphs 87 to 89. They indicate that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have some discretion as to priorities over certain services. However, their language appears to fall far short of describing what we would understand by a debate on the Estimates.
I am not concerned for this purpose with control over expenditure. I am concerned with opportunity for voicing grievances. So when the hon. Gentleman replies to the debate perhaps he will tell us what proposals the Government have in mind to provide a vehicle by which hon. Members can properly debate the control of Supply and, in the process, inform the Government of their constituents' grievances.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. and learned Member may not ask what future administration is to be provided, but may deal only with the order as it is.

Mr. Archer: I stand corrected, but that certainly places the House in a difficulty, because whether the House approves this order may depend to some extent on what it may expect as to the future. Perhaps if I leave it in this form it will satisfy the rules of order: it will assist the House in deciding whether to approve this order if the hon. Gentleman can give some in-

dication of what lies in the Government's mind about the future.
There is another matter which puzzles me, and although the hon. Gentleman offered some explanation of it I am still left puzzled. Section 1(3) of the Temporary Provisions Act says that laws may be made by Order in Council, but if we turn to paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule to the Act we read:
Her Majesty shall not be recommended to make an Order in Council under section 1(3) of this Act unless either a draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament or the Order declares that it has been made to appear to Her Majesty that by reason of urgency the Order requires to be made without a draft having been so approved.
It seems to be clear from that formulation that the Government are not expected to use the urgency procedure, but are expected to use what we might call the regular procedure, unless there genuinely is a matter of urgency.
Under the urgency procedure an Order in Council becomes effective before debate. What we are debating now, the order of which we are debating the merits, already has the force of law irrespective of what view this House forms upon it.
Before today there were three such orders. The first was of 12th June last year, and the Government used the urgency procedure, and that was understandable. It was necessary because, as the hon. Gentleman explained, the Parliament of Northern Ireland had been prorogued and before it was prorogued, it was unable to pass an Appropriation Act. It was explained that the Comptroller and Auditor General had authorised issues from the Consolidated Fund on the Government's undertaking to regularise the position without delay. Since then there have been two further orders, on 14th July and 23rd November. On those occasions the Government used the regular procedure because clearly there was no longer any such urgency. This order has been subjected to the urgency procedure. In spite of the hon. Gentleman's explanation, I still find myself asking why, because urgency usually entails some unforeseen event which prevents matters taking their anticipated course. We are left wondering about the event which has overtaken the Government and which renders the urgency procedure so essential for this order.
The hon. Gentleman gave some clue when he explained that it was related partly to Part I Class III Item 5. The Ministry of Finance issued its Spring Supplementary Estimates in January 1973. Comparing them with the order, one finds that everything in the order is accounted for except this one item. The order includes £7 million under this item additional to that in the Estimate.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, to explain that we have to turn to the further Spring Supplementary Estimate issued one month later than the original Estimate, which relates to compensation for criminal injury or damages. It is an unhappy reflection that this is a necessary item. I make no complaint that provision is made to compensate the unhappy individual victims of terrorism, but what still leaves me looking for an explanation is why there is an increase in one month from £3 million to £7 million.
Was it that the damage escalated on a scale quite unforeseeable a month earlier, or is there some other explanation that I did not follow in the hon. Gentleman's remarks? If it is the former, the House and the public ought to be told.
There is a further matter on which I am puzzled, which may not be serious but on which I have an idle curiosity. Sometimes quite important matters have a habit of revealing themselves from inquiries prompted by idle curiosity. In the order there is a number of items of £100. For example, Class I Item 1 is £100 for the salaries of a number of very busy and no doubt highly remunerated people. It is a little difficult to understand how it came about that the original Estimates fell short of what was required by £100. Why do we have these very modest items, which can hardly have been a missed guess? Is it that we really fall short of requirements by £100 per item, or is there some traditional formula known only to those who live with these things which makes it important to include the items with a nominal amount against them? If the hon. Gentleman can elucidate that he will at least shorten the debate for some of us who are puzzled.
Finally, I turn to a matter very close to my heart. It relates to Class III Item 3. It is a matter which deals with

the administration of justice. Does the figure under this item include legal aid? If not, why not? If it does, my complaint is that it is not larger.
Some of us have discussed for some time the possible extension of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1972, or equivalent provisions, to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman may know that I have exchanged some correspondence with his Department on this matter. In England, Wales and Scotland there has been some concern in the legal profession about the difficulties of those in need of advice, particularly advice on welfare rights. Obviously, ex hypothesi these are the very people who cannot afford to pay for their advice. Indeed, in the remainder of the United Kingdom there is still unhappily no provision for legal representation before tribunals; but at least it is possible for a solicitor to give advice under the Act, even to people whom he does not subsequently represent. It does not solve all the problems. There is still sometimes a problem of finding solicitors who are competent to advise in this matter. Many solicitors have not acquired the relevant expertise. That is understandable because for them very often it is not a method of earning a living.
Perhaps it should be recognised how much time solicitors here and in Northern Ireland frequently give to those in need without claiming remuneration. But if legal aid were available perhaps more lawyers might find it worth while to acquire that expertise. This issue has been very much the concern of the Child Poverty Action Group in Northern Ireland. In March 1969 there was a survey of the take-up of welfare benefits in Downpatrick. It was discovered that nearly twice as many families there were below the poverty line, taking the standard as the supplementary benefits level, as in Britain as a whole. One of the reasons which seems to have emerged is that people have no clear idea of their rights or of where to turn for advice on them. I see the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is in a position to know the facts, is in agreement with me. In consequence, a number of advice centres were set up which are now operating without any discrimination on the grounds of religion and which are frequently held in churches of varying denominations.
In 1971 discussions took place with the Law Society of Northern Ireland about how practising solicitors could offer their services in these centres. The solution was limited by a number of local factors, but chiefly finance. On 11th November last year at Queen's University a conference was arranged by the Community Relations Commission in cooperation with the Director of Law Reform for Northern Ireland. It was attended by Members of the prorogued Parliament, trade union leaders, social workers, legal staff, distinguished academic lawyers and representatives of the Northern Ireland Council for Social Services. A resolution was passed urging the Government to take a number of steps towards making advice of this kind available. Did the Minister see that resolution and if he has not seen it, will he take steps to inform himself about it and to consider it?
It has been a long day for the Minister, and I can find it in my heart to forgive him if he does not give a detailed reply to this point tonight. Perhaps this is not one of the most dramatic matters occupying the attention of Ministers, but it is of great importance to those who are most concerned. For them it is perhaps particularly important that the law should not appear as a series of prohibitions without any relevance to their more immediate concerns. It is important that they should see the law as embracing their interests and, on occasions, championing their causes, and it may prove an effective way of encouraging respect for the law if they are encouraged to see it in that light. If that is achieved the minor sums required may transpire to be sums well spent.

11.24 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are dealing tonight with the whole cycle of Government in Northern Ireland, with the various Departments and the various amounts spent and to be spent by those Departments. The tragedy of our situation in Northern Ireland is that when there is a debate in this House concerning controversial and well-publicised matters, a cross-section of Northern Ireland representatives is present. But when we get down to such matters as were ably referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton

(Mr. Peter Archer) there is not the same interest. That is a sad reflection on our society. Politics deal with people, and the points made by the hon. and learned Member are of a vital nature. I trust that if we do not have a reply tonight from the Minister those of us who have been present tonight will be told what the Minister thinks about the matters raised.
There is the important matter of legal aid. In Northern Ireland the tribunal system is very important. Those that are in need have the opportunity of appearing before the local tribunal. They have an opportunity to put their case to the tribunal, to the chairman, a representative of management or employers and a trade union official. The tribunal system is vital to the social welfare of the people.
The people who appear before the tribunal are not entitled to be represented by a solicitor under the legal aid scheme. I attend tribunal after tribunal representing my constituents. There is no week in which I do not spend hours on end doing this. I am quite willing to do it, but the matter could be handled far more ably by a trained lawyer who knew the issues and could put them more clearly before the tribunal than can a laymen who happens to be a Member of Parliament.
To the House, the problems of the people concerned may seem infinitesimal, but to the people themselves they are an Everest, the biggest problem they have ever had to face. I ask the Minister to give urgent attention to the matters raised by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, which I seek to underscore, and to show the people that the law is not against them but for them.
Many people who are below the poverty line are ignorant of their rights to social benefits. They do not understand how to achieve those rights, and if an application is turned down they never pursue it even to the tribunal level. Although the Government attempt by advertising to tell the people their rights, the vast majority do not get the message and therefore do not receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The Minister would do well to look into this question.
Another matter which worries me concerns the solicitors and barristers. How many legal aid accounts are outstanding? How many solicitors and barristers have not been paid for work they have done over a period of two years? I was told by a prominent barrister who has led in six murder cases that not one penny of legal aid had yet come his way. There are solicitors who have been waiting for legal aid money for two years. I am not talking about a paltry sum of £100. Some accounts run to £12,000, yet the money is not forthcoming. So serious is the situation that solicitors and barristers may have to withdraw from the legal aid panel because they are embarrassed at not being paid for work they have done. The machinery of the law is almost breaking down.
Today, I came over on the plane with a prominent member of the legal profession who said that he did not know how long it would be before the machinery ground to a halt. I ask the Minister to pay urgent attention to this matter.
Seven courts are operating in the Chichester Street magistrates' court. There has been no increase in the number of clerks although there has been an enormous increase in the number of cases. All the remand cases in Northern Ireland now go to Chichester Street magistrates' court, yet not one senior clerk has been appointed. There has been the appointment of four junior clerks in the past year but still five clerks have to look after seven courts and one of them has been sent out as a relief clerk.
These are faithful people who have borne the burden and heat of the day. I want to say that, unless something is done at the Chichester Street magistrates' court shortly, the whole machinery there will break down. These people have been in touch with me. They have pleaded with me. I have been to the Minister and I have asked a Question in the House. Yet the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland this week has decided that there will be no more staff and no more promotions and that the courts at Chichester Street will have to make do with the people they have. This situation is not right. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of what is taking place in these matters.
Then there is the situation of the Community Relations department. This is a very important department because when people are in trouble they immediately say "We must go to Community Relations". Was the department not set up to look after people in trouble? Yet it is not able to help where it should be able to.
I give the example of a man who was intimidated. Four men got hold of him, put a gun to his back and told him that he was going to be killed. He went to the police, who told him, "You had better leave the country and go to England". He left his wife and little ones in Belfast and went to England. His wife got in touch with me to see whether they could get accommodation in England, to see whether there was any possibility of help for the family to start a new life here.
Community Relations said that it could not do anything about it. If the man left Northern Ireland, it had no way of giving help across the water with a house and helping him set up his family in England. Yet the police told him that he was not safe in Northern Ireland. They put him on a plane and sent him to England, with his wife and family remaining behind. But the Community Relations department was unable to help him because he went across the water. There should be ways in which Community Relations could help on this side of the water through liaison with housing authorities and other authorities. I know that there are difficulties in Britain as well, but we should be able to help these people.
In another incident, a young man was able to discover some terrorist activity He was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He was threatened and the police told him that he had better sell his home. He did not dare go on living in his neighbourhood near the border. He sold his little farm with all the furniture in it. An attempt was made on his life by four terrorists. He went to Australia. Community Relations could not help him make a new life there. Yet the only reason he was terrorised was because he had put on the Queen's uniform and was serving in the UDR.
I am not saying this by way of criticism of the Ministers but because these are


important cases which come before us as Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland, and we feel frustrated when we realise that, for all the machinery, there is no way of alleviating these ills which have come about.
There is another matter which concerns the police. There is arising a bone of contention about chief constables' certificates. I should explain that if my house is burned down I cannot claim compensation unless I can prove that two or more people were responsible and can get a chief constable's certificate in which he states that it happened because of the troubles and was malicious
I am thinking now of a substantial farmer outside Portadown. He went out one night and returned to find his farm, his shed and all his machinery in ashes. Not far down the road, another farmer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I think I have to check the hon. Gentleman a little. I do not see where this is going to end. I have been thinking about the first part of what he has been saying and have been doing my best to find it in order and to give him the benefit of the doubt. But he will help the House by keeping more closely to the order rather than going into individual histories.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if there is no way whereby I can raise these matters on these accounts, there is no use my being in this House. I am discussing payment to the police. The chief constable receives a salary and I am surely entitled in this debate to say to the House what I think about what the chief constable is doing. I am surely within the rules of order to criticise the actions of the chief constable, and I am seeking to do so in a responsible manner. How does that constituent of mine feel when he cannot get a penny piece of compensation because the chief constable is not prepared to sign a certificate that his home was destroyed by an act of terrorism?
These are matters that affect the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. I certainly would not think it worth while to come and sit in this House until 25

minutes to 12 when I have constituents in trouble at home—I would be better at home helping them—if I could not voice these matters.
Education is a very important subject and yet there are great problems. We are voting vast sums to education in Class V. It has vast problems. There is the whole question of new schools in Northern Ireland. There is the whole problem of the closing of schools. I call the Minister's attention to two instances in my constituency. Take, for instance, the case of the Glenwherry Craigs school. An attempt has been made to close it. Already four schools have been closed in this area within a radius of 14 miles, making it necessary to bus these primary schoolchildren many miles away from their homes and their localities.
These are matters in which the people in these areas are interested. The only place where I can raise these matters is here in this debate tonight. I should like the Minister to look personally at this problem of the closing of schools in Northern Ireland, especially in the rural districts. I shall be glad to give him further information. I have already had deputations to his Department.
I cite another man in my constituency, who is well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). There is a village called Rasharkin. A new school is being built in that village. The school has seven classes but the school is being given only five classrooms. In a few days' time a mobile schoolroom will be brought in. Instead of building the new school to suit the capacity of the children attending it, a school will be built which does not even reach the capacity of the classes in the school. These may seem trivial matters to this House at 20 minutes to 12 but they are very important to my constituents, to the people I represent.
I could speak for a very long time on these matters, and I know that I would receive very little support from the Chair or anybody else, but this I can say tonight. I hope that never again will we be asked in an hour and a half to survey the whole Government structure of expenditure in Northern Ireland without having the opportunity fully to ventilate our case.
This is a colossal undertaking to which we are asked to give our consent. We give it reluctantly because we cannot fully debate or ventilate it. We trust, however, that our bringing these matters before the Minister will enable him to take definite steps that will be of help to everybody in the community. My plea tonight is not a party or sectarian plea but is an attempt to help every citizen of Northern Ireland.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) properly said that some of us from Northern Ireland regard it as our duty to attend to the day-to-day problems of our constituents and of the people of Northern Ireland generally, in addition to undertaking the rather more glamorous duties which sometimes fall to our lot in this House.
I wish to ask the Minister to look at the problem of special allowances to the police services. I accept what he said about the views of the police authority, but I cannot understand why that authority is so reluctant to provide from the huge sum that is available some allowance or compensation for the great hazards and hardships encountered by members of the RUC and the reserves in the execution of their duties. It does little for police morale to be told that, although a special case can be made out for other categories in Northern Ireland, members of the police, together with their comrades in the Army and in the UDR who are the primary targets for IRA terrorists, cannot be fitted into this category.
If the police authority says that it is trying hard to find some alternative way of helping, it might be argued that the officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise should have similar allowances. I would have no objection if the Treasury could be persuaded to grant such allowances, and I would support such a case. The same could be said of civil servants in general whose salary scales are already two years behind the relative grades in industry. We hope that when the counter-inflation measures permit, special consideration will be given to narrowing this gap.
Under Class IV in relation to the Ministry of Health and Social Services, I should like to draw attention to the special care of mentally-handicapped children, and I know that my hon. Friend for Antrim, North is also concerned about this matter. We are far from satisfied with the proposed structure for administering this important branch of the health service. It is a retrograde step to fragment an integrated structure which is recognised as a model for the whole of the United Kingdom, and indeed which is far in advance of anything in Great Britain.
Clause VI relates to the Ministry of Agriculture. I wish to refer to the scheme for the eradication of brucellosis. I understand that in recent months there have been many breakdowns in herds, resulting in heavy losses to the owners. I would ask whether a further look could be taken at this problem to see whether it is possible partially to compensate farmers who have suffered losses through no fault of their own.
In dealing with Class VIII relating to the Ministry of Development, I believe there is need to take another look at the professional staffs in county council legal departments. There is a vital need to retain these experienced units in the service of local government. This would do a great deal to smooth over many of the difficulties which have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North in providing legal advice in many complicated administrative matters.
My hon. Friend also mentioned chief constables' certificates. In my constituency numerous difficulties have been caused because a certificate could not be granted. I appreciate that a chief constable is a senior officer who is under great pressure and that there is great pressure on his time, but would it not be possible to streamline and smooth out these difficulties and try to speed up the process? These delays are causing great hardship to many people who can ill afford to remain in a state of indecision about the future of their businesses and properties.
Class IX, item 2, indicates the sum granted on account for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints.


The sum granted is £28,000. Is that likely to be a constant figure? Many of the allegations which were made in the early days were proved to be entirely bogus or without foundation. As in only one or two cases it has been possible to find even the slightest indication of maladministration or discrimination, is it likely that the volume of such cases will steadily diminish? If there is a diminution, will there be a consequent reduction in the establishment and the expenses of the Commissioner's Office?

11.46 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: First, I make the plea that danger money should be paid to members of the police force. They have a very difficult and dangerous job.
How much money is being spent on advertising for recruits for the Royal Ulster Constabulary? It seems that the men are not coming forward to join the force. Of course, the force's morale has been badly shaken during the last few years. I cannot remember the figures for recruitment over the last 12 months, but I believe that the figures are disappointing. What is the return for the money which is being spent on advertising in the local Press and on television? Is there some way in which more young men can be brought into the police force? Obviously the time will come when the Army must give way to the civil authorities.
There is concern in Northern Ireland that many lawyers have not been paid for cases that they have conducted under legal aid. In many cases they are owed substantial sums of money. It is especially difficult for young members of the Bar to continue if they are not paid within a reasonable time.
If we pay tribute to a particular service in Northern Ireland we should express praise for the courts and the stipendiary magistrates. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) might make an exception. There is a strong case for paying a greater salary to the stipendiary magistrates. I do not know when they last received an increase. They are overworked and they live a life which is extremely uncomfortable. They are constantly under police protection. Even that does not, as we know, save them from the gunmen. A Mr. Staunton,

a distinguished Roman Catholic lawyer, who was not long elevated to the bench as a stipendiary magistrate—I visited his court on one occasion—was gunned down in front of his children. There is a case to be made for paying more money to the stipendiary magistrates in Belfast.
My attention is drawn to the young offenders' centres and borstals. There is a borstal in my constituency called Woburn House. The police, when they have time—and they seem to have very little—occasionally have to chase after an inmate who has escaped. No doubt my hon. Friend cannot say how many people have escaped from the borstal. Money should be spent on making the borstal secure. Although I appreciate that a secure unit is being built at Woburn borstal, the whole borstal should be made secure.
Turning to the question of education, I am disappointed that the Government have made no move on ending segregated education. I believe firmly that the fearful grip of sectarian education on the minds of young people, particularly of the very young, and on the attitudes of their parents must be loosened if we are to make progress in Northern Ireland.
During the debate on the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order, I drew the attention of the Minister of State to the need to ensure that the sectarian division of primary and secondary education was not allowed to invade nursery education. I asked him to talk with church leaders about the question, but, as far as I know, he did nothing. A few weeks later I tabled a Written Question on the same topic, and it was clear from the reply that he had taken no action.
The Westminster Government, who have been in complete charge of education in Northern Ireland since March last year, have pumped an additional £1¾ million into nursery school provision in Northern Ireland by building another 50 nursery schools, but they have done nothing to ensure that the schools are non-sectarian for the pupils, wherever the teachers may have been trained. Those 50 schools, built with extra money voted by this House, will take Protestant children and Roman Catholic children, but they will not be mixed in the same school.
The Minister may protest that nursery schools under local education authority management are open to all. In theory they are. But in practice, as long as the Government continue to build separate schools for Roman Catholic management—voluntary schools, as they are called—and for local education authority management, just so long will Roman Catholic parents be prevailed upon to send their children to Roman Catholic schools and to no other. This is not in the best interests of Northern Ireland, where the children, particularly the youngest, should go to mixed schools. I am surprised that the Government, who talk so much about ending sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland and bringing the communities together, are aiding segregation when children are just tiny tots going to nursery schools. I ask my hon. Friend, who is always so robust in his comments, to give an assurance that he will look into this and make sure that the Government stop aiding and abetting the division of children into two sections.
I will not go into the subject of roads, although the roads in my constituency are dreadful. On the last occasion I asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to travel round them. If he does he will find how uncomfortable that can be.

Rev. Ian Paisley: He only travels to the Culloden.

Mr. Kilfedder: That is true, he only travels to Culloden to enjoy the luxurious hotel there and taste the superb food provided by it.
Could the Government not do something more about the information services? Our young soldiers are battling in the streets of the towns of Northern Ireland against IRA terrorists. Yet they face another enemy, I regret to say—the news media. They face the difficulties of having their actions distorted by some reporters on television. It is unfortunate that the information service does not seem to give the answer. The television camera is always behind a soldier as he is fighting and firing. We do not have the picture from behind the women carrying Armalite rifles, behind the sniper lying in the dark, waiting to kill some

young soldier or behind the children about to plant a bomb.
Every effort ought to be made, and as much money as possible ought to be spent on the information service so that the people of Great Britain and the world know of the struggle in Northern Ireland and know that it is not between Roman Catholic and Protestant but between the forces of evil who have been murdering, mutilating and destroying, and the forces of law and order represented by those gallant soldiers, members of the RUC, the police reserve and the UDR. That is the story that ought to be told fully to all the people in the world.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to hon. Members for the way they have dealt with this order. I am also grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for the spirit in which he put his precise and acute inquiries. He is a considerable authority on the subject of legal reform and legal aid. I could not hope to compete with his expertise.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked first about a matter which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said would be out of order, which was how Estimates would be dealt with in a future Assembly. Without moving too far out of order myself, I can say simply that there would be such debates. There will be Estimates. There will be a domestic Northern Ireland Budget. The way in which it operates will have to be worked out with the Assembly by discussion in the future.
The second question asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the urgent procedure governing this order. We are dealing with a matter which is, in a sense, unpredictable. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what event had overtaken the Government which they had not foreseen. First, there is the need for compensation arising when there is terrorist damage, and the rate at which it arises. Then the settlement of compensation is a matter for the courts, and the rate at which these settlements proceed is a matter not strictly controllable by the Government. We can influence the speed with which these matters are prepared—I shall come later to the question of chief constables' certificates—and considerable efforts have been made in past


months to speed up compensation, because hardship and difficulty is caused to people who have to wait for their money after suffering appalling damage and possible shock and injury. That is why we introduced the emergency finance procedures, and we have streamlined them.
The effects of these combined with the unpredictability of the causes of compensation claims and the rate at which compensation may be settled mean that we are at the mercy of events in having to find the money for compensation. Almost at the end of the financial year, we are anxious to wait as long as possible so that in seeking money for compensation we can find funds for as many settled claims as possible.
Against that there are major problems of payments of money, including transactions with local authorities which have to be completed between the coming into operation of the order and the end of the financial year on 30th March.
We have the two forces working in opposite directions. This has meant that we have had to leave the order as long as possible and then, once the end of the financial year is in sight, get it through as quickly as possible. That is why, caught between the two timing elements, we had no choice but to bring it forward under the urgent procedure.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to legal aid and talked of Class III, Item 3. I think that the item number should be 8. My copy is deficient in that there is no figure at all, but it should be Class III, Item 8, miscellaneous services. That is the category which includes legal aid. That is where the legal aid provision arises.
I took the hon. and learned Gentleman's point fully, as I did that put eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), about the importance of legal aid and about its application in the situation which he described. Certainly I shall look at the resolution to which he referred, and I shall see to it that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are acquainted with the important ideas that he raised with such expertise and understanding.

Mr. Peter Archer: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves my questions, I do not know whether he has overlooked it but I referred to the item of £100.

Mr. Howell: I overlooked it, really because the hon. and learned Gentleman answered it himself. It is a device for making note of this item under this classification to put £100 there. There are similar devices in national budgeting and this is simply a device for doing that, and no more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North mentioned delays in legal aid payments to barristers and solicitors. This is something that I shall look into anyway, but if my hon. Friend can help me in my searches by directing me to any people who have been involved, that will make the task all the easier and we shall get on with it all the more speedily.
Reference was made to chief constable's certificates. This is a vexing matter to which we have continually turned our attention. We have been anxious to speed up all the procedures all the way along in dealing with compensation claims. In defence of the administration, I must say that we have often found delays occurring on the non-public sector side in the sense that difficulties have been experienced in getting solicitors to put forward claims and the necessary details. We do what it lies in our power to do in order to speed up things, and if there are difficulties about the chief constable's certificate in respect of my hon. Friend's constituent I ask him to let me have the name and I shall look into the case. We have to stick to some procedure because taxpayers' money is involved and we have to guard against abuse. The procedures have to be there, but we do everything that we can to speed them up.

Mr. Molyneaux: We accept the need for scrutiny and the fact that certain procedures have to be followed, but would it not be possible to receive an acknowledgement when a Member sends a case to the chief constable? I have had to write twice in respect of one case. It may not be the practice to send an acknowledgement, but it would help to receive one, because without it one is in difficulty in trying to prove to a constituent that


his case has been forwarded for consideration.

Mr. Howell: I take the point and will look into it to see why acknowledgements are not provided. I am sure that it is the normal practice to send an acknowledgement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North asked detailed questions about the capacity of a particular school. I have made a note of what he said. I am not in a position to answer now, but I shall write to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) brought up again the question of an allowance for the police. He feels very strongly about this. The matter has been looked at by the police authority, but it is felt that these risks, appalling as they are— and my hon. Friend mentioned that they were faced by the Army, too—are inherent in the job of a policeman. I note the strength of my hon. Friend's feeling on the matter, and I shall consider whether further thought can be given to it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When making representations to the police authority, will my hon. Friend point out that these special grants are paid to ambulance personnel and to people in the fire service? The police appear to be treated differently. They, too, run these risks, and should therefore get the danger money.

Mr. Howell: I appreciate the point, but it is worth remembering that people in the fire and ambulance services, difficult though their task is, do not join up to deal with security problems. The police, on the other hand, are recruited to do a job involving appalling security risks. The same applies to recruits to the Army. But I note the strength of feeling on the matter, and I shall follow it up.
During the debate on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 I told the House that no overtime was payable to managerial grades in the RUC. I am glad to tell the House that since then it has been decided that a long-hour's gratuity should be paid to superintendents for the year ending 30th September 1972. I thought the House would like to know that.
Points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South about brucellosis and the staffing of county council legal departments. He will appreciate that as we are in the throes of major local government reorganisation and as we move towards the new district councils, all these matters are a little difficult, but I will bear them in mind.
On the question of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, I cannot help. The requirements depend on the number of complaints. My non. Friend may make judgments on the validity of complaints or otherwise, but there can be no control over the volume and rate at which complaints come in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down. North (Mr. Kilfedder) talked about recruitment. I cannot tonight tell him the precise figures for advertising, although I will let him know as soon as I have them. He may, however, like to know the latest recruitment figures.
The strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on 28th March—that is, yesterday—was 4,284. The trend in recruitment has not, frankly been very encouraging. In November 1972 there was a net gain of 35; in December a net gain of 29; while in January 1973 the net figure was a fall of 16. In February this picked up to a net gain of 19.
We and everyone else recognise the vital and central need of a strong police service in Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State will mention these matters again tomorrow when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On the reserve side there is an encouraging picture with a full reserve strength of 2,381, and when one compares this with 1,749 a year ago it is a more encouraging picture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North raised the question of stipendiary magistrates. I recognise the tremendously important work they do. I have to say that any question of a pay increase, as for anybody else, must come within the limitation of the counter-inflation legislation, but that does not in any way detract from the full recognition which the Government and everybody else give to the tremendous work of the stipendiary magistrates, often in conditions of great personal danger. He mentioned also the security of a particular borstal. I will


look into it further but it would not help to give a full and detailed answer tonight.

Mr. Kilfedder: On stipendiary magistrates, I asked when they last received an increase in salary. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can say tonight. I also asked how their pay compares with that of stipendiary magistrates in London. On the question of compensation to the relatives of Mr. Staunton, I would ask whether compensation will be paid quickly. It may have been paid, but it should be paid forthwith and should be an appreciable sum.

Mr. Howell: These are detailed and specific matters which I should like to look into. I should be glad to provide the facts on pay and the comparisons which my hon. Friend asks for. I should also like to look in detail into the specific matter of compensation in respect of the unfortunate magistrate murdered, and give my hon. Friend an answer.
My hon. Friend also raised the general question of nursery school education and its expansion. This is a matter to which the Minister of State concerned with education is giving considerable time. He is closely involved in the matter and shares very much the view of those who would like greater mixing and less segregation in education at all levels. At nursery level there are encouraging signs. It is not true that all nursery school education is segregated. Nor, of course, do I accept my hon. Friend's point that in some way the Government are aiding segregation. On the contrary, our aim, as he will admit, I think, in fairness, is to go very much the opposite way.
However, I will certainly draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is deeply concerned in these matters, to my hon. Friend's remarks. Perhaps I will suggest to the Minister of State that he might write to my hon. Friend about his points about the nursery school expansion programme.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North asked whether the information services could not do better. Of course, all politicians, and certainly all Ministers and all Governments, want their information services to do better. But this is a good time to pay tribute to the work of the information services. It is fair to say, although perhaps my hon. Friend will not agree, that the story of

Northern Ireland, from which he comes, and of a lot that is going on there, of the efforts of the Government and of the United Kingdom as a whole to set right the wrongs of Northern Ireland and to bring to an end the appalling violence and to carry Northern Ireland forward to a better future is beginning to be told around the world.
The world's newspapers have recognised the efforts being made, the courage of the people of Northern Ireland and the determination of the Government to improve the situation. Thumbing through the reports of the newspapers of the world, I find a very different picture being presented from that in the past. Of course one finds aspects of propaganda which do not appeal. Of course one would always like to see it done differently. But I believe that the information services have done a marvellous job, and I have no hesitation tonight in paying tribute to them.

Mr. Kilfedder: I join in my hon. Friend's tribute, but I wonder whether more money could not be poured into the services to augment them or to help achieve a better distribution of the material. That was my point. I think that they do an admirable job.

Mr. Howell: I accept that point.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There was one point that I raised which probably my hon. Friend cannot answer tonight, but I should like his assurance that he will look into it. This was about Chichester Street magistrates' court and the under-staffing in regard to senior and junior clerks there.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right: he did raise that point in addition to his other point about barristers and solicitors. I will examine this other matter, because, as in all the other aspects of the administration of the law, I recognise that people are under considerable strain. This is crucial to our maintenance of law and order and to our carrying forward a programme of restoring law and order in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend was right to raise the matter.
I think that I have covered all the points. Any that I have not covered will be noted from HANSARD and dealt with either by letter or by the appropriate means.
I remind hon. Members again that it will be possible to consider the detailed Estimates—here, we are dealing only with the Vote on Account, the advance, as it were on the Estimates for 1973–74—at greater length when they come forward for the appropriate debate. That will provide an opportunity for going over some of the expenditures for 1973–74 at greater length.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does the Minister really mean what he says, that we shall have a debate at greater length? Does he mean that the debate on the Estimates will not be on an order of this kind?

Mr. Howell: What I mean is that it will not be an order which will involve both the Appropriations and Estimates of a previous year and all the Estimates for the coming year. I am sorry if that was not clear.
I ask the House to approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I.. 1973, No. 413), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

POWER STATION, CROYDON (COAL SUPPLIES)

12.19 a.m.

Sir Richard Thompson: Now, after the pressing matters that we have been debating, we turn to one which to my constituents is the more immediate and equally pressing matter of coal supplies for Croydon B power station. This is a matter which I have raised in this House before, wholly without any beneficial result, but I am hopeful that tonight we may get a little further to a satisfactory solution.
Coal for Croydon B power station comes from Northumberland, a goodish long way. It might be thought that because there is a continuous web of railway lines between the colliery and the

power station one nationalised industry would endeavour to serve another by utilising the railway to deliver the coal. That used to be the case up to some years ago, but it no longer is. What happens now is that the coal is shipped down the North Sea, down the coast by coastal steamer; it then ploughs its way up the Thames Estuary, up the Medway, to Kingsnorth Power Station, where some of it is allocated; and it then makes the rest of its journey to Croydon in 10-ton lorries.
This procedure of sea and road delivery, with all the extra handling involved, is really not appropriate when there is a perfectly good railway line to do the job. It causes very great congestion in an already inadequate road system, and particularly severe congestion in Croydon itself with its very heavy traffic. The extraordinary thing is that if there is one cargo which is traditionally ideally suited for carriage by rail it is coal. The railways carry millions of tons of it a year, but not to Croydon B, and I want to know why.
Despite all this, it is clearly advantageous to the South-Eastern Electricity Board to get its coal supplies by road notwithstanding the existence of the railway, and I certainly do not blame the power station. It needs economical, regular and reliable transport for its supplies, and it gets it from the road haulier, but not, seemingly, from British Rail, which runs a line right to the power station door.
The environmental consequences of sending this totally unsuitable freight by road are serious. My hon. Friend has general responsibility for the environment and not just transport through it. The top estimate which I have from the electricity board of its requirements amounts to 250 loads of coal a week; with a five-day week, 50 lorry loads a day. That is quite an impost on an overloaded road system. To be fair, this is the top estimate, and the electricity board considers it is more realistic that its requirement would be about half that, but even half that is 125 loads a week and 25 lorries a day.
These lorries set out from Kingsnorth, in a part of the United Kingdom where there are few good roads, and eventually find their way to London and to Croydon.


It is a wholly unsuitable journey for these heavy lorries to make. We all know the experience of being penned in a car behind one of these monsters, of fuming, wondering why people cannot send things by rail instead of by road. I consider this to be totally unacceptable, and I hope that my hon. Friend will do something about it.
It seems to me great nonsense that British Rail should not be able to quote a competitive rate and supply a reliable service for a cast-iron customer like the South Eastern Electricity Board. How can British Rail complain about shortage of freight traffic if it lets opportunities like this slip through its fingers? Surely two nationalised industries ought to be able to serve each other better than is the case here.
All this business of the delivery of coal by rail is bound up with the future of the Croydon-West Wimbledon branch line which serves the power station and which for over a year has been under some threat of closure. This is an old story for me. I raised this matter on the Adjournment on 5th July last year, again by parliamentary Question on 15th November and again on 24th January this year. The Minister wrote to me on 7th February stating that no decision would be taken until after the report of the Layfield Panel on the Greater London Develpment Plan had been published. He also required the views of the Greater London Council and the South-East Economic Planning Council. He was waiting for a lot of advice.
We know that the GLC has since recommended a reprieve for this line, but when I reminded the Minister of this on 16th March, in a further parliamentary Question, I still got no definitive reply.
I have an uneasy suspicion that the denial of this coal contract to British Rail is all part of a plot to be able to prove that the line has no worthwhile revenue and that, therefore, it had better be closed. I suspect that. If it is otherwise, I cannot understand why this endless delay continues, while further reports are awaited from further authorities, and so on. It would not be the first time that this kind of device had been used to secure a result that someone in the Department desired to secure and intended to obtain by one means or another.

I hope that this is not so. It would be most short-sighted.
It is an incredible state of affairs, when one considers the likely investment we shall be invited to make shortly, of hundreds of millions of pounds, in the Channel tunnel, that at the same moment we should be contemplating further dismantling of the railway system, which alone can serve the Channel tunnel if it is ever built.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some satisfaction. Coal ought to go by rail where the lines already exist. If the railways cannot carry coal in competition with shipment by sea and lorry, with all the additional handling that that involves and the congestion that it adds to an already congested road system, what future have the railways got?
I invite my hon. Friend to say that he will issue a direction to British Rail to reorganise its freight policies to recapture a contract it should never have lost. I should like also to suggest to him that he reminds our right hon. Friend in the Department that it is now nine months since I raised the matter of the Croydon-West Wimbledon line and that it is about time that that matter was settled as well.

12.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) on raising this small matter—in comparison with the great events that the House has been discussing today—but nevertheless very important matter in relation to his constituents and a great many constituents in the South-East between Kent and the London borough of Croydon.
I appreciate the concern my hon. Friend has about the problem of heavy lorries in his constituency. I have personal experience of this because there are four coal mines in my constituency and I know the problems that heavy lorries carrying coal can cause. Obviously, when coal has been conveyed by rail to a local power station for years and now has to be carried by road, this must make all of us look at the situation. My hon. Friend has outlined the background very accurately. I should like to fill it in as well for the record.
The problem, as my hon. Friend said, is the question of coal supply. Perhaps what he does not know, or did not say tonight, was the problem of the different qualities of coal needed for different purposes. In past years certainly coal was delivered to the Croydon B power station by rail from the Midlands coalfields; indeed, it might even have come from my constituency. Unhappily for Croydon, these supplies are now used by the new power stations in the Midlands, and for a time alternative supplies were provided by rail from the Kent coalfields. But there is no suitable coal from this source now. Instead, the Kent coal is especially prepared for use by the steel industry and is moved by rail to the British Steel Corporation and National Coal Board coke ovens in the Midlands and the North-East for making into coke. British Rail has secured a contract to convey from 10,000 to 15,000 tons a week to Scunthorpe, Corby and other steel centres.
Coal for the Croydon power station has been allocated by the National Coal Board from the North-East of England. In the first instance it is conveyed by British Rail from the colliery to the port of shipment and thence to various power station jetties in the south such as, in the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred, of Kingsnorth near Rochester. Supplies from this source will now be used by Croydon B, but as there are no facilities at Kingsnorth for transferring the coal for onward conveyance by rail and because there is no prospect of making an economic case to the CEGB for its provision by rail, road transport from Kingsnorth to Croydon B power station has had to be accepted.
It is not at this stage certain how much will need to be supplied. Estimates vary from 125 loads a week to a maximum of 250 loads a week; that is from 25 lorries a day in a five-day week to 50 lorries a day. I understand that letters appeared in the local Press which gave a misleading impression about this.
We are talking now of a small part of the total supply of coal which is moved from the North-East to the South and has been moved by sea for generations. Much of this coal, as in the case of Kingsnorth, is landed at a place where

it is to be used. Surely this is the most desirable situation we can want environmentally. Over and over again people ask why more use is not made of waterways for bulk freights, and here is an example of just that.
British Rail is expected to pay its way on the carriage of freight and it is its decision that it cannot compete economically with coastal shipping for direct conveyance of coal from North East collieries to Croydon. If British Rail were to offer to carry coal below cost, not only would it not help other rail services—my hon. Friend will know that we are talking with British Rail about its financial position, which is not a happy one, at the moment—but shipowners would be able to invoke their rights under Section 150 of the Transport Act 1968, which enables them to apply to the Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee. This was intended as a forum for considering matters including complaints as to charges where coastal shipping is in competition with British Rail.
This is a case where four nationalised industries are involved—coal, electricity, steel and railways. But these nationalised industries are required to behave commercially and to serve a national interest, not simply each other. As I have indicated in describing the background to these events, the coal has had to be reallocated in relation to the types of coal available and the demand for those particular types. The railways continue to play a large part where this is appropriate.
British Rail conveys some 51 million tons of coal a year for the CEGB under a long-term contract which reflects the latter's policy of making the maximum use of rail. This is subject, however, to commercial and economic considerations affecting the CEGB, which generally means that British Rail has to accept that coal shipped from North-East ports —almost all of it being conveyed to those ports by rail—and then conveyed to coastal vessels direct to power stations jetties gives rise to consumer costs on delivery which British Rail cannot match.
I pointed out earlier that the rate of supply so far as it can be estimated seems likely to be 25 lorries a day and certainly no more than 50 lorries a day. Assuming a 16-hour day, this implies between two and four an hour.
The daily average is thus not likely to have a material significance either on Purley Way or on Beddington Lane. Present traffic volumes in Purley Way are about 12,300 vehicles per 12-hour day and in Beddington Lane 7,400.
Following complaints by an amenity society of coal traffic between the Kings-north and Croydon power stations using residential roads, the CEGB has agreed experimentally—when deliveries are resumed in July—to direct its contractors to use a route recommended by the society which consists in the main of Class 1 roads. It might be helpful to my hon. Friend to list them.
They are the A.20 to Crittalls Lane, thence A.224 Sevenoaks Way, Cray Avenue and Court Road—the Orpington Bypass; right into Spur Road A.232; left into Sevenoaks Road A.223, and then join A.21; left at New Fantail Restaurant, Farnborough, to A.232, Croydon Road; left into Addington Road, Addington Village Road; right into Gravel Hill, Coombe Lane, Coombe Road, Lower Coombe and Duppas Hill Road to Purley Way. This appears to be a suitable route, inasmuch as any route in this area can be suitable.
I should add that the haulage contractors are well aware of the need to avoid dust and any other nuisance, which I know from personal experience can be a problem, and the regional board of CEGB has confidence that they will take the greatest care in their haulage work.
I mention one point not raised by my hon. Friend, but which is germane, and that is the question of oil. About one train a week arrives at the power station with oil for the gas turbine units at the power station. This arrangement will continue, but this has no relevance to the coal supply. One tanker-load per day of lighting-up oil is delivered by road.
My hon. Friend referred to the Railway Board's proposal to withdraw the passenger service between Wimbledon and West Croydon. This is a matter in which my hon. Friend has taken a keen interest, and I assure him that the points he has raised will be taken fully into account by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in reaching a decision on this case. I confirm that he will also take into account the views expressed by the Greater London Council, which is the

transport planning authority for London, and by the Transport Users Consultative Committee for London, which considered objections made against the proposed closure at a public inquiry last July. The implication of the Layfield Report on the Greater London Development Plan which was published last month are also being carefully considered.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the delay in making an announcement, but I am sure he will agree that it is important from every point of view that we make the right announcement. I will pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend my hon. Friend's anxieties that the announcement should be made as soon as possible.
I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to announce a decision tonight, but, whatever the decision, it should have no effect on the use of this line for freight. I hope that I have put his fears at rest. I have looked into this, and there is no deep and devious plot either by British Rail or by my Department deliberately to run down the line so that my hon. Friend is presented with a fait accompli.
I understand why not only my hon. Friend—who has pursued this matter vigorously—but other hon. Members have been anxious about the case. I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurances he seeks about a direction, but I hope that he has been helped by the explanations I have given and the great care that is being taken about the route.
I hope also that my hon. Friend will see, firstly, that these changes were caused by a change in the source of supply of the coal; secondly, that British Rail is still very much in the business of carrying coal where appropriate, and that coastal shipping has also been an important carrier of coal, for which, on environmental grounds, we must be glad; and, thirdly, that the switch of supplies means that coal to this power station will be going by rail to North-East coast ports, then by sea, and then by road to Croydon.
In view of the figures I have quoted, the effect of the extra heavy lorry traffic is negligible, although of course we do not want any more extra lorry traffic on the roads than is necessary. The CEGB and the hauliers have shown their readiness to try to route the traffic in the way


most acceptable to the environmental groups concerned.
Although my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot meet all his pleas, I assure him that I think the arrangements that will be made later this year will be

as satisfactory as possible in the circumstances, and I will ensure that as soon as possible we make a decision on the rail closure.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.